collective bargaining: negotiating for social justice · 2016. 4. 28. · high-level tripartite...

Collective bargaining:Negotiating for social justice

High-level Tripartite Meeting on Collective Bargaining

Geneva, 19-20 November 2009

Collective Bargaining: Negotiating for Social Justice

High-level Tripartite Meeting on Collective Bargaining Geneva, 19-20 November 2009

International Labour Organization

Foreword

ii

Copyright © International Labour Organization 2010

First published 2010

Publications of the International Labour Office enjoy copyright under Protocol 2 of the Universal Copyright Convention. Nevertheless, short excerpts from them may be reproduced without authorization, on condition that the source is indicated. For rights of reproduction or translation, application should be made to ILO Publications (Rights and Permissions), International Labour Office, CH-1211 Geneva 22, Switzerland, or by email: [email protected]. The International Labour Office welcomes such applications.

Libraries, institutions and other users registered with reproduction rights organizations may make copies in accordance with the licences issued to them for this purpose. Visit www.ifrro.org to find the reproduction rights organization in your country.

Negotiating for social justice : high-level tripartite meeting on collective bargaining / International Labour Office.- Geneva: ILO, 2010

ISBN: 978-92-2-123809-6 (print)

ISBN: 978-92-2-123810-2 (web pdf)

International Labour Office; High-Level Tripartite Meeting on Collective Bargaining (2009, Geneva, Switzerland).

conference report / collective bargaining / institutional framework / role of ILO

13.06.5 ILO Cataloguing in Publication Data

The designations employed in ILO publications, which are in conformity with United Nations practice, and the presentation of material therein do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the International Labour Office concerning the legal status of any country, area or territory or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers.

The responsibility for opinions expressed in signed articles, studies and other contributions rests solely with their authors, and publication does not constitute an endorsement by the International Labour Office of the opinions expressed in them.

Reference to names of firms and commercial products and processes does not imply their endorsement by the International Labour Office, and any failure to mention a particular firm, commercial product or process is not a sign of disapproval.

ILO publications and electronic products can be obtained through major booksellers or ILO local offices in many countries, or direct from ILO Publications, International Labour Office, CH-1211 Geneva 22, Switzerland. Catalogues or lists of new publications are available free of charge from the above address, or by email: [email protected]

Visit our website: www.ilo.org/publns

Photocomposed in France CADPrinted in Switzerland ATA

High-level Tripartite Meeting on Collective Bargaining Negotiating for Social Justice (Geneva, 19-20 November 2009)

iii

Foreword

A High-level Tripartite Meeting on Collective Bargaining was held in Geneva on the 19th and 20th of November 2009, following the 306th Session of the Governing Body. The meeting was an occasion to mark the 60th anniversary of the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98). Thirty-six nominated repre-sentatives of governments (12), employers’ (12) and workers’ organi-zations (12) participated in the meeting, as did representatives from some 49 countries who had also attended the Governing Body. The meeting benefited from a number of speakers from different parts of the world, including academics, policy-makers, employers and trade union leaders.

In his opening speech, the Director-General stressed the need to strengthen the institutional environment for collective bargaining if this fundamental principle and right at work were to be effec-tively realized. He was joined by the Chairperson of the Governing Body, and the Employer and Worker Vice-Chairpersons who gave their perspectives on the challenges that governments, employ-ers’ and workers’ organizations face in this regard. The meeting was chaired by Professor Thomas Kochan of MIT’s Sloan School of Management.

The meeting was organized around thematic panel discussions. The first panel addressed the role that collective bargaining played in managing change as an effective crisis response. The second panel focussed on innovative practices, with two case studies. One was a collective agreement in the healthcare sector in the United States which sought to improve productivity, service quality and working conditions. The second case study concerned the role that collec-tive bargaining played in improving the working conditions and em-ployment stability of non-regular workers in India. While in no way reflecting common practices, they did illustrate how challenges in very different country contexts could be addressed through collec-tive bargaining. The third panel explored the ways in which policy and institutions were creating an enabling environment for the ef-fective realization of the right to collective bargaining through law, bargaining councils and machinery for dispute prevention and reso-lution. The meeting chairperson presented a summary at the end of the meeting, reflecting his views and what he saw as the points of convergence.

Foreword

iv

Since many ILO constituents were not able to attend the event, we are publishing this booklet which contains:

■ The address by the Director-General of the ILO

■ The addresses by the Governing Body Chairperson and of the Vice-Chairpersons

■ The summary by the meeting Chairperson

■ The background document prepared for the meeting, “Negotiating for social justice”

■ The programme of the meeting

■ The list of participants.

The outcome of the meeting was discussed by the ILO Governing Body in its 307th session in March 2010.1 We look forward to the implemen-tation of the work programme.

Tayo Fashoyin

Director,Industrial and Employment Relations Department

1 GB.307/12

Table of contents

Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .iii

Address .by .Ambassador .Farani .Azevêdo, .Chairperson .of .the .Governing .Body . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Address .by .Sir .Roy .Trotman, .Worker .Vice-Chairperson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Address .by .Daniel .Funes .de .Rioja, .Employer .Vice-Chairperson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Address .by .Juan .Somavia, .Director-General .of .the .ILO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Summary .of .proceedings, .Prof .Thomas .A .Kochan, . .Chairperson .of .the .HLTM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Annexes

“Negotiating .for .social .justice” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Programme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63

List .of .participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65


1

Ambassador Farani Azevêdo

Chairperson of the Governing Body

Dear colleagues, dear participants,

As you know this year marks the 60th anniversary of ILO Convention No. 98 on the right to organize and collective bargaining. Collective bargaining is an essential instrument to guarantee that workers have the opportunity to influence rules and practices at their workplace. It is the mean to promote the truthful exchange that builds a stronger and more sustainable enterprises and societies. Furthermore it is also a tool to achieve a fair balance in economic and social relations. Finally collective bargaining is also a right of every worker, as enshrined in Article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and a corner-stone for human dignity and democracy.

Collective bargaining is essential both at the international and at the national level, as we face the most severe social and economic crisis in 80 years. Collective bargaining has never been so crucial. This gather-ing today is very timely. It is essential to place employment at the heart of the recovery to build a stronger and sustainable growth pattern. There can be no social justice, no decent work and no fair globaliza-tion if the fundamental Conventions are not widely ratified and strictly observed.

At the national level it is vital to strengthen procedures to promote col-lective bargaining. There are three key challenges:

■ First, the large informal economy and the predominance of small enterprises pose obstacles to the spread of collective bargaining practices.

■ Second, the externalization of some services has changed the em-ployment relationship on which collective bargaining is premised.

■ Third, the rapid growth in non-regular forms of employment which are not covered by collective bargaining regulations.

We are seeing important attempts to close these gaps through legal amendments. Over the next day, you will be talking about some of these challenges and examining developments in respect of various countries. This is certainly an issue that we expect to be more and more at the centre of attention in the coming years.

Ambassador Farani Azevêdo

2

There are two areas where I see the need to reflect in more depth. First, the global and regional integration of economies means that we should reflect on international and regional cross-border models of col-lective bargaining. Second, the informal economy: we need to reflect on innovative ways in which collective bargaining can also be used as a tool to improve the productivity and conditions of those in the informal economy.

I thank you.


3

Sir Roy Trotman

Worker Vice-Chairperson of the Governing Body


Today we celebrate the 60th anniversary of ILO Convention No. 98. While the majority of ILO member States have ratified this Convention, we know that many either do not apply it or fail to respect this funda-mental right.

The title of this High-level Tripartite Meeting is Negotiating for Social Justice and in that regard, I would like to make reference to two things. The first is a statement Benjamin Disraeli, a former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, made in 1871, and the second is related to thoughts from the world leaders in 1919 at the Treaty of Versailles.

The major question, Disraeli said in 1871, was not the power of the Prussian leader of the time. He argued that his pressing problem was the question of labour. In one of his speeches he argued that the “rights of labour are as sacred as the rights of property”. In 1919, notwithstanding the slaughter from bombs and other weapons of mass destruction, the leaders realised that there would be no lasting peace unless the problems of labour were addressed. In 1919, the signa-tory nations to the Treaty of Versailles created the International Labour Organization (ILO) in recognition of the fact that “conditions of labour exist involving such injustice, hardship and privation to large numbers of people as to produce unrest so great that the peace and harmony of the world are imperilled.” Without social justice for workers, there could be no lasting peace.

People have tried to finesse the labour question over the years, includ-ing on the 10th of May 1944, with the Philadelphia Treaty and the Dec-laration of Philadelphia which reaffirmed the founding principles of the ILO, in particular that labour is not a commodity and that freedom of association was essential to sustained progress. This led to the adop-tion of ILO Conventions No. 87 and No. 98. The reason for this was a sincere appreciation of the role that sound labour management rela-tions – the role that fair, jointly agreed rules – play in governing the em-ployment relationship. However, there is still a lack of understanding of the way in which labour management relations is to be treated. The right to collective bargaining was born out of struggle and the effective realization of this fundamental right continues to be a challenge.

Sir Roy Trotman

4

This High-level Tripartite Meeting is timely because it speaks to some very basic things that the trade union movement, workers’ representa-tives and other actors need to recognize. It is a question of respect for fundamental principles at work and what arises from that basic respect, which is a balanced and fair outcome for all – social and eco-nomic progress. Respect for these fundamental principles recognises the mutually dependent nature of production – the fact that capital cannot create wealth by itself, it has to come from the energies of la-bour and those who own their own labour – the workers. A challenge remains as to how we are going to apply the fundamental principles, enshrined in Convention No. 98, at the national level and progressively at the transnational and international level.

I thank you very much.


5

Daniel Funes de Rioja

Employer Vice-Chairperson of the Governing Body


We are here to celebrate the 60th anniversary of ILO Convention No. 98. Speaking for the employer, collective bargaining remains an important mechanism to improve incomes and working conditions and to advance social justice, while at the same time facilitating sus-tainable enterprises and productivity. Employers support the effective realization of the right to collective bargaining as one of the four fun-damental principles and rights at work. Looking at the way out of the crisis, we need to be absolutely sure that the economy recovers with full respect to the principles in the 1998 Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work.

Collective bargaining is a very useful means to regulate workplace rela-tions, also because it is used on a voluntary basis. It is something that needs to be linked at the place in which we work. Collective bargaining can make a real contribution to national development, social harmony, rights and labour standards and stable, profitable and sustainable en-terprises which generate jobs and improve society. If used properly and in the context of macro industrial relations systems, collective bar-gaining has been a very useful tool in improving rights and protections, enterprise sustainability and facilitating workplace adaptation. Collec-tive bargaining has delivered real gains consistent with the fundamen-tal aims of the ILO across a wide range of societies. But much has changed since Convention No. 98 was first adopted. The relevance of any ILO standard lies in its capacity to respond and adapt to changing times and to changing circumstances. Collective bargaining, like any other labour market tool or practice, must continuously adapt to the challenges it faces. If collective bargaining does not adapt it risks los-ing its relevance, it risks being overtaken by other approaches, some of which may be positive, some may be negative, not delivering gains for employers or employees. The relevance of this meeting and the future use of collective bargaining relies on the social partners being able to periodically use the agency of the ILO to reflect on law and practice, culture and utility.

In the 43 years I’ve been working with collective bargaining in my coun-try and for the 23 years that I’ve been the employers’ spokesperson on

Daniel Funes de Rioja

6

Mr Daniel Funes de Rioja

the Minimum Wage Council, collective bargaining and expressions of social dialogue have been closely linked to democracy. They cannot be seen without a context of plurality. That does not mean that democracy is a condition of collective bargaining. We need to have a constructive attitude when thinking about collective bargaining. Thinking about col-lective bargaining as a process in which someone loses and someone wins is thinking about it in the very short term. Collective bargaining is an instrument not just for addressing immediate problems, but also for establishing a mid-term vision within the economic context that each enterprise or sector has. It can be a win-win. There is no stable or sustainable enterprise if employment relations do not result in a win-win. This is why it is so important that we are having this discussion in difficult and challenging times, where the construction of dialogue at all levels and the fundamental principles on which collective bargain-ing are based are being questioned. Constructive social dialogue and collective bargaining are testimony of mature relations between social partners and governments. It is important that a framework that is legally established through collective bargaining is respectful of collec-tive autonomy, in other words in accordance with Convention No. 98. The partners need to be free to enter into constructive dialogue and negotiate to find solutions without interference.

There is one word that should be highlighted – responsibility. Responsi-bility in terms of what we negotiate and how we see collective bargain-ing. Collective bargaining is an instrument but also a means to build a working environment that is better and more productive, flexible and sustainable, when jobs are sustainable and consequently there is the possibility of creating productive work.

I thank you.


7

Juan Somavia

Director-General of the International Labour Office

Professor Kochan,

Ambassador Maria Nazareth Farani Azevêdo and Chair of our Govern-ing Body,

Sir Roy Trotman,

Mr Daniel Funes de Rioja,

Participants,

Colleagues,

Thank you all for being here and special thanks to the panellists.

Thanks to George Dragnich and all who contributed to the preparation of this event.

The principles and rights concerning freedom of association and col-lective bargaining and the related standards are the backbone of the ILO.

Its tripartite character is premised on them.

They are at the heart of the ILO’s mandate; a source of its comparative advantage and of its identity.

And ILO Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 concretized the role of workplace democracy as a cornerstone of social peace and social justice.

We must continue to promote universal ratification of these Conven-tions.

But we know it does not end there because ratification and application are not the same thing. And collective bargaining is only stable in the long run when all parties are looking for fair solutions for all stakehold-ers rather than focusing on their differences.

The role of these rights has been widely recognized.

Juan Somavia

8

At the 1995 World Summit for Social Development they were identified as essential elements of a package of measures for inclusive social development.

Having launched and chaired the Preparatory Committee of the Social Summit, I was closely involved in promoting this recognition. For the first time, at a Summit level, the ILO Conventions were taken out of the ILO system, projected globally and considered to be a foundation of global social development.

The follow up to that was the 1998 ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. All member States undertook to respect and promote these principles and rights without necessarily having ratified the related Conventions. The Declaration has had global rec-ognition.

And afterwards, the Decent Work concept included those principles and rights and international labour standards, along with work, social protection and social dialogue in a sustainable development approach. All cross cut by gender equality. All of the fundamental principles and rights came to be part of this development approach based on the Decent Work Agenda.

The Decent Work Agenda also received global recognition and political support.

Then came the ILO’s insistence that the social dimension of globali-zation (I would say the social downside of globalization) – including respect for workers’ rights – had to be addressed.

Our 2008 ILO Declaration on Social Justice for a Fair Globalization built on the values and principles embodied in the ILO’s Constitu-tion and reinforced them to meet the challenges of the twenty-first century.

With the various steps described above, we were already addressing underlying fault lines before the present crisis erupted.

In all of these, freedom of association and collective bargaining were integral elements. They are enabling rights that empower.

The ILO’s constant message has been that work must be a source of human dignity.

That labour is not a commodity.

That economic growth had to be reflected in social progress; that so-cial progress also supports sustainable economic growth.


9

And that in times of crisis the most vulnerable workers, families, house-holds, communities, should not be the least protected.

We must keep this vision alive.

We must make our principles, rights and Conventions real in the context of the twenty-first century.

Today, I want to focus on some specific concrete actions that this requires.

First, pursuing an integrated approach

Freedom of association and collective bargaining remain two of the most challenging categories of rights at work.

The Decent Work Agenda and the ILO Declaration on Social Justice for a Fair Globalization project that integrated approach. The latter states, and I quote:

“The four strategic objectives are inseparable, interrelated and mutu-ally supportive… To optimize their impact, efforts to promote them should be part of an ILO global and integrated strategy for decent work.”

This is easier said than done, but it is fundamental to what we have to do.

A key challenge then is to shape strategies that promote respect for the right of collective bargaining within such an integrated framework.

It was encouraging to hear G20 leaders, in launching a framework for strong, sustainable and balanced growth, state, and I quote: “To assure that global growth is broadly beneficial, we should implement policies consistent with ILO fundamental principles and rights at work.”

Second, achieving greater effectiveness of the follow up of the ILO’s supervisory machinery

The ILO has an impressive mechanism for overseeing the application of international labour standards. But we must make a major effort to better connect supervisory comments with practical support and action to help constituents find solutions and secure satisfactory out-comes. We must ensure appropriate arrangements for peer reviews to be effective.

Juan Somavia

10

Third, strengthening the institutional environment for collective bargaining

This is indispensable. What does it take? Let me highlight some ele-ments:

■ A sturdy defence of the right to organize;

■ Capacity-building to ensure strong workers’ and employers’ organi-zations that can engage in collective bargaining;

■ Strengthening labour inspection and labour administration systems – this is a very important part of the whole process, yet generally they are too weak and this is one reason for weak collective bar-gaining;

■ A review and overhaul of labour tribunals and conflict resolution systems too often weighed down by heavy case loads. In this re-gard, the perspectives of panellists with experience of national sys-tems will be invaluable – allow me to mention Ms Wilma Liebman and Ms Valencia Kola as well as Professor Kochan himself; and

■ Using the ILO’s Convention system, and especially ILO Recommen-dation No. 198 concerning the employment relationship to shape and apply national policy to protect workers in this context.

These are just some aspects.

Fourth, reinforcing the role of Global Framework Agreements in promoting collective agreements

In a global economy, Global Framework Agreements have emerged as a new modality for taking dialogue, bargaining and negotiation to another level.

We need to draw lessons from these initiatives, how they have benefit-ed workers and employers and how they can be reinforced to support national organizations and processes.

Fifth, assessing the best ways of progressively doing collective bargaining in the informal economy

In many countries most people work in the informal economy and will do so for some time. There are various initiatives to extend this right to bargain collectively in the informal economy. How have they worked? What more do we need to do?


11

An ACTRAV [Bureau for Workers’ Activities] Symposium on ILO Con-vention No. 98 [October 2009] highlighted the need for action in this area – I was pleased to participate in that meeting too.

Many others have a role to play and we all have to think about it.

I also want to propose that there should be a similar dialogue on social economy enterprises and organizations that are often a staging point between the informal and formal economy.

Sixth and on a very practical note: resources

Demand is high, our regular budget is limited. And extra-budgetary funding still comes closely linked to donor preferences. Commonly, is-sues such as freedom of association, collective bargaining and labour administration are not at the top of the list. But you cannot leave them aside. They are fundamentals of a stable society. This also applies to national resource allocation.

I urge all of you to be advocates for the role of collective bargaining and related areas in underpinning a sustainable, democratic developmen-tal process to influence funding decisions, especially in development cooperation policy.

Conclusion

I very much hope this meeting will set an agenda for action to help ensure that collective bargaining is an effective instrument for deliver-ing on the needs of workers and their families, also responsive to the needs of enterprises, societies and economies. In so doing it will also be an effective instrument for social justice for a fair globalization.

Professor Thomas A. Kochan

12


Chairperson of the HLTM

Chairperson’s summary

The High-level Tripartite Meeting on Collective Bargaining was an oc-casion to celebrate the 60th Anniversary of ILO Convention No. 98 on the Right to Organize and Collective Bargaining (1949). During the opening session, the Director-General, the Chairperson of the Govern-ing Body, and Employer and Worker Vice-Chairpersons agreed that ILO Convention No. 98 on collective bargaining and the right to or-ganize along with the 1998 Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, are foundational principles of the ILO. They pro-vide the basis for pursuing social justice, decent work and enterprise sustainability. They must continue to be emphasized as we seek to recover from the disastrous recession and economic decline that we are experiencing.


13

From my point of view, in the 20th century collective bargaining earned its status as a cornerstone institution for democracy and as means of enhancing the growth of our economies and improving workers’ economic status and as an instrument for the social part-ners to respond to crises at their workplaces and at national levels. It also proved to be innovative for much of the 20th century. Our challenge is to build on that rich institutional history and to carry it on in the 21st century. However collective bargaining faces many challenges, including a changing workforce, the changing nature of work, and the globalization of economic activity. Union membership and collective bargaining coverage has either declined or remained essentially stable in the majority of advanced industrialized econo-mies and covers only a very small fraction of the workforce in many developing nations. Collective bargaining therefore needs to evolve and adapt if it is to remain relevant as a tool for addressing the inter-ests and concerns of the parties today. These challenges need to be addressed in all of our efforts, and must be addressed collectively if we are to make progress. The participating countries, the govern-ment representatives, the worker representatives and the employer representatives, have helped us to understand what each needs to do to meet these challenges. This summary provides an overview of the discussions at the meeting and my understanding of the points of convergence.

Managing change

The crisis that started in the financial sector soon impacted on the real economy and is now a global employment crisis. We heard of efforts of the social partners across Europe to use collective bargain-ing to arrive at agreements that save jobs, maintain income and try to ensure the short term survival of enterprises, while also looking to secure longer term employability and enterprise sustainability though training and changes in work organization. Countries which had well developed collective bargaining institutions and practices were well prepared to craft effective recovery responses. In others’ with perhaps less developed institutions and traditions of collective bargaining, the role of the social partners has been more limited. We have also seen a return to tripartite discussions on critical economic and social policy issues at the national level. This is important not only for expanding the tool kit that the social partners have to address the crisis, but also ensuring coordination.

The presentation by representatives from Daimler demonstrated the important role that collective bargaining at the sectoral level and works council deliberations at the enterprise and workplace played


14

in saving jobs and facilitating adjustment to the changing economic realities that workers and the company faced. A broader package of policy measures that included support for short-time work and train-ing made some of these discussions possible. Of course different countries have different industrial relations systems, however it illus-trates the importance of seeing representation and collective bargain-ing as an integrative process and the links between the workplace, enterprise, sectoral and national levels. An important point about cri-sis bargaining was raised in the Daimler case – that when parties face crisis and are open and transparent with each other about the nature of the crisis and the challenges they are facing, the result is not only a solution for the immediate crisis, but a deepening of trust and of relationships. We should use this opportunity to build relationships, to build the trust that is so central to confronting these issues effectively and respond appropriately.

The experience at Daimler and in many similar cases around the world demonstrate that the parties can address these types of crises by be-ing open to negotiation and the broadening out the agendas, being transparent and sharing information, taking new ideas into account that they may not have thought of – it is that creative process that has brought about so many of the basic innovations in collective bargain-ing that have served us well in the past and can continue to do so for generations to come.

Innovative practices

The scope of issues that are the subject of collective bargaining has expanded to include training, employability and productivity. We had the opportunity to have presentations on two innovative case studies: the labour management partnership at Kaiser Permanente which seeks to improve the quality of services, efficiency and work-ing conditions; and the efforts to expand the reach of collective bargaining to address and improve the working conditions and em-ployment security of contract workers in India. In my view, these cases illustrate the potential of collective bargaining to address is-sues that go beyond wages and working hours or some legally man-dated process. Of course we cannot force employers and unions to talk about how to creatively implement technology in a way that safeguards the interests of the workforce while making sure that these technologies pay off in terms of improving the competitive-ness of our enterprises and our economies. But these are examples of the types of frontier issues that can be, and in leading cases, are being addressed by labour and management in their collective agreements.


15

The key point made is that for collective bargaining to reach its full innovative potential it must go beyond formal contract negotiations. We need a coordinated response at all levels of our employment rela-tions system, from the determination of working conditions, wages and hours, to the level of strategic decision making, within our enter-prises where the basic decisions about product design and technol-ogy and location are made. There needs to be continuous dialogue at that level, as much as there is continuous dialogue at the work-place. Collective bargaining can provide a framework that facilitates that coordination and dialogue. But I want to emphasize particularly, that there is another level at which collective bargaining can play a facilitating role, and that was emphasized particularly in the Kaiser Permanente case, that the people on the front line, who understand how to deliver services, how to improve productivity, how to achieve continuous improvement - need to be encouraged and brought into this process. This is the new frontier of collective bargaining. The Kaiser Permanente case showed that unions and employers that choose to expand this frontier by forming labour-management part-nerships have the opportunity to forge a new social contract that once again sees wages and working conditions improve in tandem with improvements in productivity, service quality, and other critical measures of enterprise performance. To support these partnerships employers need to share basic information about the business and the changing marketplace and provide the education and training that workers and unions need to contribute to continuous improve-ment. Unions need to be prepared to engage in discussions on pro-ductivity, on the improvement of work processes as well as working conditions.

Another frontier for collective bargaining lies in the complex challenges associated with improving the working conditions of non-regular and/or migrant workers. These workers are often the most vulnerable in labour markets. The changing nature of work and difficulty establish-ing the existence of an employment relationship in some countries may place these workers outside of the reach of collective bargaining agreements. This is a difficult and contested area of law and prac-tice in many countries. A number of examples from India illustrated how the social partners are using collective bargaining to address the needs of these workers. This is occurring on two fronts, first, between a trade union and temporary work agency to improve the conditions of work of those whom they employ and second, between a trade union and user enterprise to regularise the contracts of non-regular workers. Trade unions are expanding their organizing drives and membership to include non-regular workers. The social partners will need to continue to discuss and explore new ways to address the needs of non-regular


16

and migrant workers, including through collective bargaining, given that they constitute the majority of the workforce in many developing countries and a growing portion of the global workforce.

Creating an enabling environment

I now turn to the role of government. We heard three specific roles that government needs to play. One is to protect the basic rights for free-dom of association and collective bargaining. The second is to provide mechanisms for individual and collective dispute resolution, and the third is to promote innovation and indeed to be a catalyst for innova-tion. Cleary, a democratic government is a precondition to freedom of association. Where it doesn’t exist, unions and worker organizations are going to continue to protest until they achieve the democratic right that all workers rightly deserve and should be provided. So democracy is essential to freedom of association and, in turn, freedom of associa-tion and collective bargaining are means of strengthening and sustain-ing a democratic society.

Labour law, as many emphasized, should not be static. There may be a need to update it to address the reality of changing labour markets if it is to serve as an effective tool of labour market governance. We should not go through long periods of impasse or ideological debate over labour law. If that is the case, we will find that our law is outdated, and that practice is getting farther and farther removed from the re-quirements of law. But neither should labour law be subject to the whims of changing political regimes. We need an approach to labour law that is both stable and responsive, and which provides the social partners with the space to innovate through collective bargaining. The best labour law reforms are those that emerge from a process of social dialogue and consultation with all of the stakeholders having a voice, and doing whatever they can to build the commitment to implementing the changes in law wherever possible, as part of the deliberative proc-ess. Labour law is not self-implementing. It requires a commitment of the social partners and therefore the more we can do to make sure that it is the product of broad social consensus, the stronger our law will be.

Modern labour law should not reinforce adversarial systems but should open us up to explore opportunities for creative, innovative approaches. It must strike that appropriate balance between equity and efficiency. It is the practice that allows us to innovate and find new approaches - whether that means interest-based bargaining and problem-solving, or the direct involvement of employees at the work-place to facilitated efforts by labour and management partners – col-lective bargaining is the mechanisms that can help us find the right


17

balance between equity, flexibility and competitiveness. Labour law is the policy instrument which can establish an enabling environment for innovations through collective bargaining. It is also the essential means for monitoring rights at work and social protection where col-lective bargaining is not well developed.

But as we have seen, there is also a need to go beyond these basic requirements. Today, an equally important role is to provide for dis-pute resolution, through mediation, facilitation, the voluntary means that parties need to reach agreements. There is a need to support governments in developing mediation services and agencies, as was instrumental in helping South Africa make a transition from apartheid to a democratic economy and society. The role of complementary structures and forums at the national and sectoral levels, such as wage councils in Uruguay or bargaining councils in South Africa also play a role in preventing and resolving disputes and helping the parties shape solutions that fit their particular situation. So we have to be continu-ously creative in developing mechanisms that help to prevent and re-solve disputes and allow the collective bargaining process to realize its full potential. As a guiding principle these should always aim at helping the social partners achieve negotiated agreements.

The third role of government is probably the most underdeveloped at the moment. Government has a responsibility today, as emphasized during the meeting, to be a catalyst for innovation. That means work-ing with the parties, to build commitment to the principles of modern negotiation, of modern workplace participation, of consultation at the workplace and sectoral level, to consultation at the national level. There is no magical way to support this kind of innovation, but governments must be actively involved in providing and disseminating information, promoting innovation and supporting the parties as they reach for new approaches to solving their problems.

The role of the ILO

Finally, what does this all imply for the ILO? Clearly, forums such as this tripartite meeting are examples of the creative potential for bringing the parties together. We would continue to encourage social dialogue at this level and other levels by bringing experts together from different countries and different experiences to provide ideas for how to strengthen the different elements of social dialogue. The ILO must continue to promote the ratification and effective implementa-tion of Convention Nos. 87, 98, 151 and 154. Since protection by law and collective agreements are linked to the existence of a clear em-ployment relationship, Recommendation 198 is a key instrument for


18

addressing concerns about the employment relationship. The ILO must continue to play its role in knowledge development, collecting and updating information on the status of collective bargaining and worker representation, on innovative practices that illustrate how col-lective bargaining is both responding to specific crises and break-ing new ground, and on other issues that are needed to understand the situation for collective bargaining and how it can advance social justice in our societies. The ILO also needs to continue to build the capacity of trade unions, employers’ organizations and governments. The ILO has played a historical role in providing technical assistance to the development of labour laws, to its administration, and to build-ing the capacity in our countries from advanced industrial societies to the developing economies around the world. That will continue to be a critical role, and I would continue to urge the ILO to support their development of technical assistance capabilities, particularly in our developing world.

And then finally, I want to echo something that the Director-General and the President of the Governing Body emphasized at the open-ing session. The ILO must continue to be the voice for promoting the principles and documenting the potential of collective bargaining in


19

the world’s economic forums that are taking place, and in other fo-rums outside of the normal jurisdiction of the ILO. So to this end, I was delighted to hear that the ILO had a strong presence in the recent meetings of the G20 leaders at which the options for addressing the economic crisis were discussed. The Global Jobs Pact adopted by the ILC in 2009 makes reference to the critical role that collective bargain-ing can play in avoiding job losses, preventing deflationary wage spirals and reducing social tension. I would encourage the ILO to continue to emphasize the importance of unions and employers’ organizations to democratic societies and the innovative potential of collective bargain-ing and tripartite dialogue in discussions with leaders of our economic institutions, whether that be sister institutions such as the International Monetary Fund, or the World Bank, or the G20 or similar kinds of or-ganizations and forums.

Thank you.


21

INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANIZATION

Industrial and Employment Relations Department (DIALOGUE)

TMCB/2009/1

This paper was prepared by Susan Hayter with research assistance from Bradley Weinberg and Mothepa Ndumo. Comments received from Karen Curtis, Minawa Ebisui, Tayo Fashoyin, Youcef Ghellab, Kostas Papadakis and Humberto Villasmil are gratefully acknowledged.

Collective Bargaining: Negotiating for Social Justice

High-level Tripartite Meeting on Collective Bargaining Geneva, 19-20 November 2009

Annexes - TMCB/2009/1

22

Copyright © International Labour Organization 2009

First published 2009

Publications of the International Labour Office enjoy copyright under Protocol 2 of the Universal Copyright Convention. Nevertheless, short excerpts from them may be reproduced without authorization, on condition that the source is indicated. For rights of reproduction or translation, application should be made to ILO Publications (Rights and Permissions), International Labour Office, CH-1211 Geneva 22, Switzerland, or by email: [email protected]. The International Labour Office welcomes such applications.

Libraries, institutions and other users registered in the United Kingdom with the Copyright Licensing Agency, 90 Tottenham Court Road, London W1T 4LP [Fax: (+44) (0)20 7631 5500; email: [email protected]], in the United States with the Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923 [Fax: (+1) (978) 750 4470; email: [email protected]] or in other countries with associated Reproduction Rights Organizations, may make photocopies in accordance with the licences issued to them for this purpose.

978-92-2-122953-7 (print)

978-92-2-122954-4 (web pdf)

The designations employed in ILO publications, which are in conformity with United Nations practice, and the presentation of material therein do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the International Labour Office concerning the legal status of any country, area or territory or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers.

The responsibility for opinions expressed in signed articles, studies and other contributions rests solely with their authors, and publication does not constitute an endorsement by the International Labour Office of the opinions expressed in them.

Reference to names of firms and commercial products and processes does not imply their endorsement by the International Labour Office, and any failure to mention a particular firm, commercial product or process is not a sign of disapproval.

ILO publications can be obtained through major booksellers or ILO local offices in many countries, or direct from ILO Publications, International Labour Office, CH-1211 Geneva 22, Switzerland. Catalogues or lists of new publications are available free of charge from the above address, or by email: [email protected]

Visit our website: www.ilo.org/publns

Photocomposed in France CADPrinted in Switzerland ATA


23

Table of contents

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25

Regional .and .global .developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27

Scope .and .content .of .collective .bargaining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38

Issues .for .discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47

Managing .change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Innovative .practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

An .enabling .environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49

Annexes

Annex .1 .Trade .union .density . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52

Technical .note: .Trade .union .density .definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55

Annex .2 .Collective .bargaining .coverage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .57

Technical .note: .Collective .bargaining .coverage .definitions . . . . . . . . . . .60


25

Introduction

The year 2009 marks the 60th anniversary of the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).1 The Convention defines collective bargaining as “voluntary negotiations between employ-ers or employers’ organizations and workers’ organizations, with a view to the regulation of terms and conditions of employment by collective agree-ments”. It refers to the process of bargaining and dialogue between the social partners, the desired outcome of which is a collective agreement.

This note serves as an introduction to the High-level Tripartite Meeting on Collective Bargaining that will take place at the ILO in Geneva on 19–20 November 2009. It provides a brief overview of trends in different regions, examines developments in respect of the content of collective bargaining, and highlights some innovative practices, includ-ing the ways in which the social partners are responding to the economic crisis. It further identifies some issues that may be discussed during the High-level Tripartite Meeting on Collective Bargaining.

Overview

Collective agreements serve as key means for improving and regulat-ing terms and conditions of work and advancing social justice in many countries.2 The primary issues for collective bargaining are wages and working time, but a range of other issues are often included, such as annual leave, occupational safety and health, vocational training, equal treatment, productivity, and family responsibility. Collective bargaining is also a means to institutionalize labour relations and settle workplace disputes through dialogue. This helps to build trust and cooperation in the workplace and is thus the bedrock of sound industrial relations. Because it balances the decision-making power, collective bargaining is a vital tool for forging genuine “social partnerships” between employers or employers’ organizations and trade unions. The social partners may also use collective bargaining as a process to address and cope with economic and social change, such as the present economic crisis, in a manner that meets the interests of both workers and employers.

1 This has since been supplemented by the Labour Relations (Public Service) Convention, 1978 (No. 151), and the Collective Bargaining Convention, 1981 (No. 154), which broad-ened the concept of collective bargaining and extended it to both the public and private sectors (except for the armed forces and the police).

2 The ILO Declaration on Social Justice for a Fair Globalization notes “that freedom of as-sociation and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining are particularly important to enable the attainment of the four strategic objectives”, para. A. (iv),ILO, 2008


26

Integration into global markets has intensified competition and the pressure for enterprise flexibility. In response, enterprises introduced new forms of work organization and changed their employment prac-tices. This resulted in more flexible working time arrangements and a rise in non-regular employment (e.g., fixed-term, casual and temporary employment). New technologies and more flexible work processes also demand a higher level of skill and the training of workers. This quest for greater competitiveness was accompanied by the growing individu-alization of employment relations and a rollback in support for col-lective bargaining in some countries. Economic changes, involving a decline in the share of manufacturing in total employment and increase in the share of services eroded the traditional membership base of trade unions in many countries. These changes present important challenges for collective bargaining. Collective bargaining practices and structures need to adapt to remain responsive – and bargaining agendas need to broaden to accommodate new concerns.

While trade union membership declined in many countries, the number of workers covered by collective agreements remained relatively stable in some but fell in others, particularly in countries which deregu-lated labour markets and removed support for collective bargaining. The ILO conducted a statistical inquiry into trade union density and collective bargaining coverage in 2008–09 (see Annexes 1 and 2).3 The preliminary results of this inquiry highlight the poor quality of these indicators, and the need to support the efforts of the social partners in the collection of data. The data shows a significant difference in the role that collective bargaining plays in regulating terms and condi-tions of work in higher and lower income countries. In higher income countries, the proportion of workers covered by collective agreements is either equal to or higher than trade union density. In developing countries, institutions supporting industrial and employment relations are weak, and the proportion of workers engaged in and covered by the terms of collective agreements remains very low, often below that of union density, particularly when those in informal employment are included.

3 A questionnaire was sent to the National Statistics Office and the Ministry of Labour of all countries to survey the available statistics and information on trade union den-sity and collective bargaining coverage. The statistical inquiry was executed as a joint project by the Industrial and Employment Relations Department and the Bureau of Sta-tistics of the International Labour Office. The aim of the project is to use the informa-tion to improve the collection of data at the country level on trade union density and collective bargaining coverage as an indicator of the strength and quality of social dialogue.


27

Regional and global developments

Turning to trends in different parts of the world, there continues to be great diversity in how collective bargaining is organized in differ-ent countries. This section highlights some key developments in specific regions and at the global level. While there is increased collective bar-gaining activity at the enterprise level in many countries, a shift to indus-try-level bargaining is also observed in a few. One common feature is the introduction of clauses that allow some flexibility either in respect of dif-ferent sizes of enterprises or under particular economic circumstances.

Africa

There are significant developments in the legal and institutional frame-works for collective bargaining in many countries in the African region. Some countries strengthened organizational rights, for example by removing restrictive registration measures (e.g. Botswana and Uganda); ending state support for trade union monopolies and permitting trade union pluralism (e.g. Ghana, Tanzania, Ethiopia, Mauritania and Nigeria); and extending organizational rights to the public sector (e.g. Botswana, Namibia, Ghana and Mozambique). Seeking to respond to the demands of the global economy, some governments introduced and/or elaborated on the rules and procedures governing collective bargain-ing processes. Examples of this include introducing procedures for rec-ognition (e.g. Morocco), introducing a duty to bargain in good faith (e.g. Mozambique, Lesotho, and Namibia), and enacting a right to infor-mation (e.g. Kenya and Tanzania).

A number of countries created new industrial relations institutions to encourage collective bargaining and its smooth functioning. Examples include tripartite institutions of social dialogue, such as the Comité National du Dialogue Social (National Social Dialogue Committee) in Senegal; new bargaining mechanisms, such as the Public Sector Coordinating Bargaining Council in South Africa; and new dispute resolution institutions, such as the Commission for Mediation and Arbitration in Tanzania.4

Despite developments in the legislative and institutional framework, collective bargaining remains underdeveloped in many countries in this region. There are a number of reasons for this. Many countries expe-rienced a sharp decline in formal sector employment and trade union

4 Other examples of new dispute resolution agencies include the Commissao de Mediacao e Arbitragem Laboral (Commission for the Mediation and Arbitration of Labour Issues) in Mozambique, the Committee for Dispute Prevention and Resolution in Namibia, and the National Labour Board in Kenya.


28

membership as a result of structural adjustment programmes. Formal wage employment accounts for a relatively small per centage of employ-ment in most countries and the majority of workers work in the informal economy or in unpaid work in the rural sector.5 In addition, trade unions tend to be fragmented and relatively weak.

Collective bargaining structures across the region are diverse, with bargaining taking place at different levels (i.e., enterprise, sectoral/indus-try or central/national levels), or at multiple levels at the same time. In Tanzania, collective bargaining of public sector workers is central-ized, but largely enterprise-based in the private sector.6 In Ghana, the National Tripartite Commission establishes minimum conditions which serve as a reference point for bargaining at the enterprise level. There is also a strong tradition of “pattern bargaining” within industries; for example the University Teachers Association takes its lead from settle-ments by the Ghana Medical Association and the Teaching Hospitals.7

In Nigeria, employers’ associations and one or more trade unions nego-tiate industry-wide agreements which may then be improved upon or supplemented by issues negotiated at the enterprise-level.8 In Cameroon, the state is involved in facilitating the negotiation of industry/sectoral accords.9 In many countries, tripartite institutions of social dialogue play a key role in facilitating sound labour relations and including workers in the informal economy, as in Niger, Senegal, Togo and the Democratic Republic of Congo.

In South Africa, where formal wage employment is significant, sectoral bargaining, either through Bargaining Councils or non-stat-utory fora, plays an important role in regulating terms and conditions. Collective bargaining agreements are estimated to cover around one-third of all workers in wage and salaried employment (see Annex 2). Bargaining Council agreements can be extended to non-parties (enter-prises that are not members of the employers’ association) within the particular scope of the Council. The Bargaining Councils often pro-vide procedures by which enterprises can apply for exemptions from the agreements, based on criteria such as the size of the business or undue financial hardship. Bargaining Councils are themselves responsible for the enforcement and monitoring of their collective agreements. With the social partners in these sectors essentially “self-regulating” through Bargaining Councils, the state then concentrates on establishing

5 For overview of diverse trends in labour relations, see Wood and Brewster, 2007.6 Madihi, 2009. 7 Gockel, 2009. 8 Fajana, 2009. 9 Nanfosso, 2009.


29

basic conditions of employment in other sectors through Employment Conditions Commissions.10

Labour disputes have increased in a number of countries, particularly in the public sector where the practice of collective bargaining is not as advanced as in the private sector and where labour relations will take some time to mature (e.g. South Africa and Nigeria). Ghana, on the other hand, witnessed a decline in the number of labour disputes, owing in part to the preventative and proactive role played by the new National Labour Commission.11 Despite the creation of many new institutions for dispute resolution, their effective funding remains a key challenge. The unstable political climate in some countries does not present a promis-ing outlook for the use of collective bargaining as a means to facilitate the development of sound and productive labour relations and improve working conditions, as can be seen in countries such as Zimbabwe.

The Americas and the Caribbean

There have also been a number of legal and institutional developments in the Americas and the Caribbean. After a period of relative hiatus in respect of legal and institutional reforms, there are attempts to strengthen union recognition and bargaining rights in the United States in a new Bill.12 In Canada, the Supreme Court ruled that Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects the right of union members to engage in collective bargaining.13 A number of countries in the Caribbean reformed or enacted new procedures promoting collective bargaining and introduced a duty to bargain in good faith (e.g. Jamaica, Bermuda, and Grenada).

In South America, trade related concerns sometimes created the impetus for legal reforms aimed at bringing legislation into conform-ity with international standards.14 One issue remains the promotion of collective bargaining with alternative forms of workers’ organizations. The ILO Committee on Freedom of Association considers that direct negotiations between an enterprise and its staff which take no account of existing representative organizations may run counter to international standards.15 Some countries have strengthened organizational rights, for example by enabling trade union federations to be recognized in

10 Budlender, 2009. 11 Established by Labour Act No. 651 of 2003.12 Employee Free Choice Act (H.R. 1409/S.560)13 Health Services and Support – Facilities Subsector Assn v. British Columbia (2007, SCC 27).14 Vega, M.L. (ed.), 2005. 15 Freedom of Association: Digest of Decisions And Principles of the Freedom of Association

Committee of the Governing Body of the ILO, Fifth (revised) edition, 2006, para. 945


30

Brazil, thus ensuring their financial stability.16 A few countries reformed or enacted new procedures promoting collective bargaining. Uruguay adopted a number of regulations strengthening collective bargaining rights and passed legislation that expands collective bargaining in the public sector.17 Argentina has broadened the scope of the duty to bargain “in good faith”, strengthened the right to information and restored bar-gaining at different levels.18

In North America, collective bargaining is mostly decentralized to the enterprise-level, and at least in Canada and the United States, privately organized. In the latter, judicial decisions regarding the use of perma-nent replacement workers during a strike and subsequent employer strat-egies to individualize employment relations had a dramatic impact on trade union density and collective bargaining coverage.19 Recent evidence shows that after the majority of workers have voted for a union, only 56 per cent of newly certified bargaining units are successful in achieving a first agreement, and only 38 per cent are able to do so in the first year.20

Interestingly, health insurance and pension benefits are included in nearly half of all collective bargaining agreements.21 The significance collective bargaining plays in regulating terms and conditions of work has been more stable in Canada, where collective bargaining agreements are esti-mated to cover 31.5 per cent of wage and salaried workers (see Annex 2). In Mexico, the role that collective bargaining plays in regulating terms and conditions at work is limited and the quality of collective agreements are considered to be poor.22

Collective bargaining remains underdeveloped in much of South America. With the exception of Uruguay and Argentina, the proportion of workers covered by collective agreements is low, ranging between 4.1 per cent of wage and salaried workers in El Salvador and 16.2 per cent in Costa Rica (see Annex 2). Collective bargaining coverage also fell in some sec-tors, particularly those which were privatized and/or where restructuring and the reorganization of production resulted in the outsourcing of par-ticular services. There is a general emphasis on enterprise-level bargaining,

16 Consolidação das Leis do Trabalho Ley 11.468 de 2008.17 Adopted 16 July 2009, Collective Bargaining in Labour Relations in the Public Sector, Num.

18.508 (Negociación Colectiva En El Marco de las Relaciones Laborales en el Sector Pú-blico).

18 Law on Stable Employment (Nueva Ley De Empleo Estable, No. 25.250 de 2000 (amended by Ley No. 25.877 de 2004).

19 Trade union density declined from 20.1 per cent in 1983 to 12.1 per cent in 2007. There was a slight increase to 12.4 per cent in 2008 (United States Bureau of Labour Statistics).

20 Kochan and Ferguson, 2008. 21 Sweeney, 2007.22 Cardoso and Gindin, 2009.


31

particularly in Central America and the Andean region. There are one or two sectoral agreements in some countries, such as the construction sector in Panama.23 The large informal economy and the predominance of small enterprises are often seen as obstacles to collective bargaining, particularly as in this region the threshold for forming a trade union is anywhere from 20 to 40 workers.24 In Central America, collective bargaining predomi-nantly takes place in the public sector.

In Brazil, collective bargaining occurs largely at the municipal/ter-ritorial level. Collective conventions at the municipal/territorial level generally set minimum standards that may then be improved on by negotiations between an enterprise and the municipal union. There has been an interesting development in Brazil’s banking sector, where both the employers’ organizations and unions formed national industry-wide associations to coordinate their bargaining strategies and collective agree-ments that bind bank workers in both the public and private sectors.25

Wage bargaining has been reinvigorated in Uruguay, with the rein-statement of sectoral Wage Councils and the creation of new Councils for rural workers and domestic workers in 2005. An estimated 89 per cent of wage and salaried workers are covered by collective agreements (see Annex 2). The sectoral agreements reached by Wage Councils do allow some flexibility. For example, in some sectors the parties included “safety clauses” which shorten the duration of the contract in case of economic difficulty, with the original agreement remaining in effect until another agreement is concluded. There is limited articulation of different issues between different levels, although the practice differs from industry to industry. Only sectoral agreements in the metallurgi-cal and the textile industries include a framework for later negotiations at the enterprise level. Some other agreements establish specific issues to be negotiated at the enterprise-level. For example, the “International news agencies” agreement establishes enterprise-level negotiations for the wages of workers earning dollars.26

Collective bargaining has been revitalized in Argentina with the strengthening of industry/sectoral level bargaining. In general, industry/

23 An agreement was signed in 2006 between El Sindicato Único de Trabajadores de la Construcción y Similares (Suntracs) and Cámara Panameña de la Construcción (Capac). Serious allegations of violence against trade unions involved in this agreement were recently the subject of observations by the ILO Committee of Experts. See ILCCR. 2009: Examina-tion of individual case concerning Convention No. 87: Freedom of Association and Protec-tion of the Right to Organise, 1948 Panama (ratification: 1958).

24 Colombia, 25 workers are needed to form a union at the enterprise level, 30 in Ecuador and Honduras, 35 in El Salvador and 40 in Panama (Vega, 2005: 224).

25 Cardoso and Gindin, 2009. 26 Mazzuchi, 2009.


32

sectoral agreements set minimum standards. Enterprise-level agreements may be negotiated to improve upon, but not derogate from, these stand-ards. Industry unions play a key role in coordinating collective bargain-ing even when it takes place at the enterprise-level. Collective bargaining is underwritten by the fact that agreements remain in force until such time as they are renegotiated.27

Asia and Pacific

In the Asia and Pacific region, institutional frameworks for labour rela-tions are at very different stages of development. At one end of the spec-trum are countries in which labour relations are relatively well developed, such as Australia, New Zealand, Japan and Singapore. At the other, tran-sition countries are establishing new labour relations frameworks, such as Cambodia, China, Mongolia, Nepal and Viet Nam. Legal reforms in the region reflect these stages of development. The strengthening of organizational rights and the enactment of procedures for recognition are a key focus in countries that have shifted to more democratic govern-ance, such as Indonesia.28 The transition economies have introduced a series of legislative and institutional initiatives aimed at building new labour relations systems. Legal reforms of a more procedural nature have been introduced in Malaysia and Singapore, where the state plays a key role in shaping the bargaining structure/practices. Workers in the public sector in a number of countries still do not enjoy the right to collective bargaining. After significant deregulation of rules and procedures for collective labour relations in Australia and New Zealand, recent reforms have reaffirmed support for collective bargaining, and in respect of the latter country, expanded the system of collective bargaining in the public sector.

Enterprise-level bargaining remains the predominant bargaining structure in most countries in the region. Exceptions include secto-ral agreements in the plantations sector in Sri Lanka, and the cotton and textiles and plantations sectors in India.29 Labour market reform under way in Nepal also aims to strengthen collective bargaining at the sectoral level. Faced with the proliferation of non-regular forms of employment, some trade unions in Korea initiated a nationwide campaign to reorganize previously enterprise-based trade unions into industry-based organizations. While collective bargaining still takes place predominantly at the enterprise-level in Korea, there has been

27 Cardoso and Gindin. 28 Act concerning Trade Union/Labor Union No. 21 of 2001 and Manpower Act No. 13 of

2003.29 Amerasinghe, 2009.


33

some shift to sectoral bargaining in the banking, health and metal sectors.30

Significant changes in collective bargaining practices are taking place in China, particularly since the early 2000s. According to official statistics, 149 million workers were covered by collective agreements in 2008. The government and social partners have used tripartite mecha-nisms to promote the expansion of collective bargaining coverage. While questions remain about the quality of these collective agreements and the collective bargaining process, there is some indication that there has been a steady improvement in their quality. There has also been a gradual spread of regional/sectoral bargaining. This development is considered important in helping overcome the widespread problem of unions’ dependence on individual employers at the enterprise level. In some localities this led to the negotiation of minimum wages for workers in small- and medium-sized enterprises that are higher than the manda-tory local minimum wages.31

Given the predominance of enterprise-level bargaining in this region, particular mechanisms can play an important role in coordinating wage settlements across the economy. For example, in Singapore, the tripar-tite National Wage Council (NWC) plays a key role in issuing national guidelines that are taken up in subsequent enterprise-level negotiations. In Sri Lanka, employers’ organizations play a central role in coordinating collective bargaining, and no collective agreements are reached outside of the Employers’ Federation of Ceylon.

In Japan, the Shunto (spring wage offensive) has traditionally played an important role in this regard. The Shunto is the mechanism by which sectoral unions lead wage negotiations in a coordinated manner. However, it has weakened in recent years due to worsening economic conditions which have constrained the ability of unions to achieve annual pay scale increases. This also resulted in individual enterprises beginning to shy away from the Shunto wage settlement in order to remain competitive. With this weakening of its traditional role, new roles are being explored for the Shunto and the mechanism is undergoing a period of revitali-zation. At the national level, the Japanese trade Union Confederation (JTUC-RENGO) has been utilising Shunto as a means to reduce wage disparity between those who work in large firms and those who work in SMEs, and between regular and non-regular workers. At the sectoral level, the Japanese Electrical Electronic & Information Unions used an occupation-based wage demand formula in the 2007 Shunto bargaining

30 Yoon, Y. 2009. 31 Lee, C.H. 2009.


34

round in order to achieve equal pay for work of equal value in each occupation.32

One of the most salient constraint on collective bargaining in this region is the weak capacity of the social partners. A multiplicity of trade unions has been one of the elements hampering collective bargain-ing practices in Cambodia, Indonesia, Pakistan and the Philippines. Furthermore, employers’ organizations have only recently emerged in transition economies, such as Cambodia, China, Mongolia and Viet Nam.33

Labour relations are highly adversarial in many countries in the region. In India, this manifested itself in two major strikes in the airlines sector in 2009. Collective disputes have been rising in the public sector in Sri Lanka. Labour relations are also highly adversarial in Nepal where institutions for dispute resolution are underdeveloped. China and Viet Nam have also seen a dramatic rise in disputes due to tensions arising from new market-based employment relations with which labour laws and underdeveloped industrial relations institutions are struggling to cope.34

Europe and Central Asia

As in other regions, there are significant differences between countries in Europe. In respect of developments in collective bargaining frameworks and institutions, three broad groups can be distinguished. The first group includes countries in the enlarged European Union (EU), where integration and European Union directives shape legal and institutional developments. The second group includes Moldova and countries in the Western Balkans.35 The third group is made up of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS).36

In respect of the first group of countries, some in the EU 15,37 with relatively well developed industrial relations institutions introduced pro-cedural amendments to facilitate the adaptation of collective bargaining structures (to permit more articulated bargaining) and to extend cov-erage to vulnerable workers. For example, France introduced changes

32 Information provided by Japanese Institute for Labour Policy and Training.33 Yoon, Y. 2009. 34 Lee, C.H. 2009. 35 Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovinia, Croatia, FYR of Macedonia, Montenegro and Serbia.36 Azerbaijan, Armenia, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Russia,

Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Ukraine.37 EU15 refers to the ‘old’ EU Member States: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France,

Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom.


35

to regulations governing representativity and introduced other reforms that give broader scope to enterprise-level negotiations.38 In Norway, a new Act seeks to increase the effectiveness of the extension of collective agreements in sectors with a large proportion of migrant workers and to ensure the applicability of collective agreements to workers employed by subcontractors.39

The situation is somewhat different in the new EU Member States. Many countries adopted new labour codes extending the scope of collec-tive bargaining and setting out procedures for collective bargaining. For example, the Czech Republic enacted procedures for extending collective bargaining agreements.40 Bulgaria introduced legal reforms regulating thresholds for recognition and the conduct of collective bargaining at different levels.41

In respect of practice, most of the EU15 and some of the new Member States have industrial relations systems that are characterized by strong multi-employer bargaining institutions and the extension of collective agreements. As a result, collective bargaining coverage tends to be higher than trade union density (see Annexes 1 and 2). Collective bargaining takes place largely at the sectoral level in many of these countries.42 In others, collective bargaining is carried out at a centralized or inter-sec-toral level, although subsequent sectoral bargaining plays a significant role in implementing or expanding on national inter-sectoral accords.43 Inter-sectoral bargaining also plays a role in regulating particular issues in countries with sectoral structures, for example, issue-specific bipartite agreements on occupational accidents and illness in France.44 There are also a group of countrieswhere most collective bargaining takes place at the enterprise level.45

Some decentralization is evident in this group of countries. In Finland, after a long period of central income policy agreements, collective

38 Law on Lifelong Vocational Training and Social Dialogue No. 4 of 2004, and Law on Renew-ing Social Democracy and Working Time of 2008.

39 Lov om endringer i allmenngjøringsloven m.m. (solidaransvar mv.) Law 2009-06-19-42. Act on changes in the Act m.m. (joint and several liability, etc.).

40 Collective Bargaining Amendment Act No. 255 of 2005. 41 Labour Code Amendment Act No. 25 of 2001 (amended by Act No. 40 of 2007).42 Austria, Bulgaria, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Slova-

kia, Sweden.43 Belgium, Ireland, Greece and Spain (framework), Romania.44 EIRO, 2008.45 Cyprus, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Poland and the United Kingdom.

There are a few sectoral agreements, for instance in education and the performing arts in Estonia and in metalworks in Cyprus.


36

bargaining shifted to the sectoral level in 2007.46 In Denmark, a new sectoral framework agreement paved the way for the development of an enterprise-level bargaining structure in the insurance sector.47 There are also opposing developments; for example, fragmented bargaining prac-tices in Spain led to a centralization of collective bargaining. What is clear is that in response to growing pressure for enterprise flexibility, higher-level agreements, whether at the intersectoral or sectoral level, have wid-ened the scope for collective bargaining at the enterprise level, and issues agreed at higher levels are articulated at lower levels. In Germany, for example, the November 2008 collective agreement in the metalworking industry included a clause allowing the implementation of a general pay increase to be negotiated at the enterprise level. Enterprise-level negotia-tions also play a key role in determining the details of flexible working time arrangements.

This trend towards greater articulation led to a debate on whether this represents the adaptability of collective bargaining structures or the erosion of collective bargaining. In this context, it is important to point out that collective bargaining coverage has remained relatively stable despite these changes in collective bargaining arrangements, which suggests that they are adapting rather than weakening. The relation-ship between different levels is being regulated in diverse ways. Some countries allow lower-level agreements to derogate from standards set by higher-level agreements, in particular circumstances and according to an agreed procedure (e.g. France). In other countries, a favourabil-ity principle applies, meaning that lower-level agreements may improve upon but not derogate from labour standards in higher agreements (e.g. Slovenia).

With the enlargement of the European Union, the transnational dimension of collective bargaining is becoming more important. There are two important developments in this regard. The first is the increased cross-border comparison of labour costs, flexibility and performance by multinational enterprises (MNEs) and the exchange of information and coordination of bargaining agendas by trade unions. The second concerns transnational negotiations between European industry federa-tions, sometimes initiated by an European Works Councils (EWCs), and a multinational enterprise which result in European Framework Agreements (EFAs). These agreements do not address wages and work-ing time – regarded as core collective bargaining issues – but rather address topics such as corporate social responsibility; the elaboration of key principles underpinning company employment policies; business

46 EIRO, 2008a. 47 EIRO, 2009.


37

restructuring; and particular aspects of company policy such as health and safety.48

In respect of the second group of countries, including Moldova and countries in the Western Balkans, significant efforts were made to estab-lish the legal and institutional foundations for social dialogue, includ-ing procedures governing collective bargaining and dispute resolution.

In Moldova, Serbia, and the FYR of Macedonia and Montenegro, the main focus of recent reforms has been the regulation of national tripar-tite bodies for social dialogue (e.g. representativity for participation). As a result, a number of economic and social councils and similar insti-tutions have been established. Collective bargaining in these countries takes place at different levels (national inter-sectoral, sectoral/branch level and enterprise), although weak and fragmented social partners have limited the development of collective bargaining. In addition, the priority given to the establishment of tripartite institutions of social dia-logue as part of the preparatory work for accession to the European Union has captured the bulk of the resources and attention of the social partners.

In the third group of countries (CIS), many also adopted labour codes over the last decade that include procedures for collective bargain-ing and dispute settlement. However, the weak capacity of the social partners limits the development of collective bargaining in practice. Collective bargaining takes place mostly within larger (formerly state-owned) enterprises.

The Middle East

Progress with regard to the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining remains limited in the Middle East. In addition, governance systems which provide protection to migrant workers are particularly weak.49 While some countries are making efforts to establish legal frame-works that guarantee freedom of association and collective bargaining rights, the weak capacity of the social partners because of impediments to these rights, limits their exercise in practice. An exception is perhaps the transportation sector, where collective agreements have been reached in the terminals managed by APM Terminals in Jordan and Bahrain. Here, the role of the global union federation has been crucial in coor-dinating and supporting the efforts of domestic trade unions in these industries. Efforts are also underway to encourage tripartite social dia-logue in Jordan, Oman and Bahrain.

48 EU, 2008 and EIRO, 2008b. 49 ILO, 2009a.


38

Global developments

In respect of global trends in industrial relations, a growing number of International Framework Agreements (IFAs) have been concluded between MNEs and a global union federation (GUF) (possibly co-signed by an EWC). Unlike the EFAs, these are global in scope. These are not collective agreements, but rather establish frameworks of principles, often with a commitment to promote fundamental principles and rights at work including the effective recognition of the right to collective bar-gaining.50 In the maritime sector, a unique agreement was reached in an international bargaining forum between the International Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF) and the International Maritime Employers’ Committee (IMEC). The agreement has many of the characteristics of a collective agreement, including wage increases, working hours, leave entitlement, maternity pay and medical treatment. Negotiations have been affected by the economic crisis and its effect on shipping; however the agreement has provided the basis for a strong partnership between the ITF and IMEC.

Scope and content of collective bargaining

Collective bargaining agreements are an important means of guaran-teeing decent working conditions and sound labour relations. Two observations can be made in respect of the scope of collective bargain-ing. The first is that in some developing countries, clauses in collective agreements do little more than replicate basic provisions in legislation on minimum wages and hours of work.51 This may be an indication of the weak capacity of the social partners to achieve better quality agreements and, in some instances, the immaturity of labour relations. However it also suggests that in countries where labour administration is weak and/or underdeveloped, collective bargaining can play a key role in implementing and monitoring labour regulation. Collective bargaining can also play a role in enhancing knowledge of basic labour standards. For example, in South Africa, enterprises falling under the jurisdiction of sectoral Bargaining Councils tend to have better knowledge of the Labour Relations Act than those in sectors not covered by Bargaining Councils.52

A second observation is that the collective bargaining agenda has expanded in many parts of the world. Collective agreements now include a wide range of issues such as training, demographic change and parental

50 Papadakis, 2008.51 For example in Vietnam, China and Tanzania (Lee, 2009; Yoon, 2009; and Madihi, 2009).52 Budlender, 2009.


39

Box 1. Expanded collective bargaining agenda

Flexible work practices:

• Wage flexibility (e.g. variable pay systems, pay incentives linked to productivity)

• Working time (e.g. annualized working hours limiting or abolishing overtime, flexi-time, working-time account)

• Work organization, quality control and standards

• Job evalution systems/categories

Employment security:

• Continuity of service

• Regularizing employment

• Restructuring (e.g. skills upgrading, voluntary retirement, severance pay)

• Pensions

Employability:

• Vocational training

• Leave and financing

Gender and equal treatment:

• HIV/AIDS and disability

• Parental leave and family responsibilities

• Sexual harassment

• Wage improvements or wage parity for atypical workers

• Gender and racial equality

Occupational safety and health

rights. This broadening of the collective bargaining agenda, which often includes many of the issues outlined in Box 1, enables the social part-ners to negotiate agreements that seek to address the needs of enterprises for increased flexibility in order to remain competitive, as well as those of workers for employment security, better working conditions and fair treatment.

Wages and working time remain the primary issues for collective bargaining. However, approaches to these primary concerns increas-ingly include measures to link pay to performance and implement flex-ible working time arrangements. For example, in Sri Lanka, a growing number of agreements signed by the Employers’ Federation of Ceylon


40

(EFC) and different unions include productivity-based bonuses.53 In Brazil, participation in profits and results (“Participação nos Lucros e Resultados”) has been a main issue on the bargaining agenda, especially in the manufacturing sector.54 The introduction of productivity-linked wages and the question of the metrics is also a key issue on the bargain-ing agenda in the public sector in many countries.

This link is also clear at a more aggregate level. While the growth in wages has generally lagged behind growth in productivity and the wage share has been declining, real wages in countries with higher collective bargaining coverage are much more strongly connected to economic growth.55

Negotiations that secure productivity improvements and link these to wages are often accompanied by efforts to make working hours more flexible. Innovative agreements in this respect seek to balance enterprise needs, to make working time more adaptable to variations in produc-tion (and reduce the cost of overtime), while at the same time extending to workers a degree of control over their working hours to enable them to combine family and work life. This is also important for migrant workers who may wish to use accumulated hours to extend home leave. Examples are hours-averaging schemes (“annualized hours”), which permit variations in weekly hours to align these with production needs and reduce or eliminate overtime. Work/family considerations resulted in agreements that include more employee-oriented schemes such as flexi-time schemes and working-time account schemes, that allow work-ers a degree of control over their working hours. In the context of the present economic crisis, collective bargaining is being used as a tool to introduce short-time working and work sharing schemes (discussed further on). In Europe, strong regulatory frameworks have enabled flex-ible working time arrangements to be agreed upon through collective bargaining, often permitting the specific details to be worked out at the enterprise level. There are significant challenges when these more innovative regulatory models are transplanted to developing country contexts with weak social partners and underdeveloped collective bar-gaining institutions.56

The introduction of changes in work organization, involving new technology and work processes that seek to improve performance,

53 Amerasinghe, 2009. 54 Initially created by the 1988 Constitution, the regulation of PLR in 2000 led to a dramatic

increase in unions’ bargaining efforts and is a key reason for many strikes in the manufac-turing sector (Cardoso and Gindin).

55 ILO, 2008b. Wage share refers to employees’ compensation as a proportion of total GDP.56 S. Lee and D. McCann, forthcoming.


41

Box 2. Kaiser Permanente: Improving the quality of health services and the quality of work

output quality, and working conditions of workers has also been a key subject for collective bargaining. In the United States, for exam-ple, Kaiser Permanente and the Kaiser Permanente Unions (CKPU) reached an innovative agreement to improve the quality of health serv-ices and the quality of work (see Box 2). There is evidence from United Kingdom and France that where changes in work organization are nego-tiated with workers and their representatives, enterprise performance improved.57

57 F. Fakhfakh, V.Pérotin, and A. Robinson, forthcoming.

Background

Kaiser Permanente (KP) is a major US healthcare provider, employing over 165,000 people and providing care to 8.6 million people. In 1997 the Coalition of Kaiser Permanente Unions (CKPU) and management agreed to a framework: The National Labour-Management Partnership (NLMP) to guide negotiations aimed at improving working conditions, employee participation and improving efficiency and the quality of services. Its foundational purpose and mandates are to ensure that all parties will be able to meet their organizational goals while facing unprec-edented change and challenge from the evolving dynamics in the US health care system.

The 2005 collective agreement

In 2005, management and the CKPU successfully negotiated a national agree-ment which in addition to wages and benefits, addresses issues such as service quality, workforce development, staffing flexibility and attendance. The agreement includes significant new investment in joint training funds for workforce devel-opment and workforce development planning. The agreement establishes unit-based teams in which managers, frontline workers and physicians transform their traditional roles into leaders in order to work together to plan and design work processes, set goals and establish metrics, evaluate performance, budget, staff-ing and identify and resolve problems. The objectives of the unit-based teams are to improve worker satisfaction and efficiency and productivity. The negotia-tions, which involved some 400 workers, physicians and managers, were car-ried out through a highly innovative collective bargaining process. Bargaining task groups used interest-based negotiation practices to create a set of recommenda-tions on key issues. The five-year agreement governs the wages and benefits of nearly 100,000 members of the Union Coalition and directly affects the work of


42

A major concern for workers and their organizations is employment insecurity, arising either from the restructuring of enterprises or growth in non-regular employment (fixed-term, part-time, temporary and casual work). This concern is even more acute in the current economic context.

One of the responses by the social partners to technological change and rising employment insecurity is to improve the skills of workers to ensure long-term employability. Thus, the inclusion of training and life-long learning on the collective bargaining agenda is seen as an innovative

thousands of physicians and managers. The duration of the agreement is five years, with provisions for renegotiation on certain topics in 2008.

What issues arose?

In 2005, during the KP-CKPU negotiations an internal rift at the AFL-CIO created some tension in the bargaining process. Regional differences in wages and ben-efits, particularly health coverage for retiring workers, also presented the negotia-tors with some challenges. An examination of absenteeism rates and crafting a mutually agreeable policy to improve attendance also proved difficult. Independ-ent facilitators were used to help the partners to the negotiation focus on their own and the other parties’ interests and objectives.

What was the impact?

The company and union coalition report that the agreement deepened their part-nership and facilitated shared commitment to performance and patient care. The agreement improved wage and benefit parity across regional labour markets and established performance sharing payments tied to workers achieving business performance goals jointly agreed to by management and unions. A new non-punitive attendance policy established incentives for workers to bank and cash out unused sick leave. The 2005 agreement is identified as having introduced a number of innovative work practices, such as the development of unit-based teams and the introduction of workforce planning and development. This helped to ensure the organization’s ability to meet future needs and encourage employee involvement. As a result of broad satisfaction with the KP-CKPU partnership, the 2008 reopener resulted in an agreement with additional wage increases and im-provements in retiree health, as well as the first national benefit enhancement ever negotiated at Kaiser Permanente, namely the establishment of a Health Retire-ment Account (HRA). This benefit provides that eligible employees will be able to spend unused sick leave on otherwise uncovered medical expenses in retirement. The 2008 Agreement was ratified almost unanimously (96%).

Sources: Kaiser Permanente Labor-Management Partnership: www.lmpartnership.org McKersie, R. et al., 2006.


43

development. Support for lifelong learning and training can be benefi-cial to both enterprises and workers, especially in the context of tech-nological change or economic uncertainty. Training not only increases the employability of workers – enabling them to remain in their present job or to find a new one – but also increases the functional flexibility of firms by enabling them to reassign tasks among current employees. This development has been particularly significant in Europe. Countries that have strong social partners and a strong institutional base for social dia-logue and collective bargaining have had the most success in setting up collectively agreed frameworks for continuing vocational training. For example, in Denmark, an agreement between the Central Organisation of Industrial Employees (CO-industri) and the Confederation of Danish Industries (Dansk Industri, DI) created a fund, through employer contri-butions, which finances training for employees. Those workers who take the programme receive 85 per cent of their wages while being trained. Meanwhile, in countries with weak social partners and a poor institu-tional base, it has been more difficult to include training and lifelong learning provisions in collective agreements.58

Social partners in different countries are also using collective bar-gaining to improve the terms and conditions of employment of non-regular workers. These agreements include one or a combination of the following approaches: first, collective agreements may include provi-sions that seek to regularize the employment of non-regular workers. In Europe, some collective agreements covering temporary agency work-ers place limits on the duration of temporary contracts, after which workers become eligible for an open ended contract.59 In Chennai in the Tamil Nadu region in India, a growing number of collective agree-ments include provisions to make contract workers permanent when a vacancy arises. Similar developments are being observed in Mumbai (in the Maharashtra region) where a number of contract and casual workers are now permanent workers (e.g. a collective agreement was concluded at Century Rayons, and between Rashtriya Chemical Fertilizers and the CITU).60 In Uruguay, recent agreements in the manufacturing sector also include measures aimed at regularizing employment.61

Second, collective agreements are being reached that specifically improve the terms and conditions of non-regular workers. For exam-ple, in Japan, a collective agreement was reached in 2009 between the Hiroshima Electric Railway Co., Ltd. (which employs 1,200 workers)

58 Heyes and Rainbird, forthcoming. 59 For agreements in Europe, see EIRO, 2000. 60 Shyam Sundar, 2009a; 2009b. 61 Mazzuchi, 2009.


44

and the union which will regularize within a year all full-time contract workers (fixed-term employment) and unify the wage system of regu-lar and contract workers, in order to eliminate the disparity that exists based on employment status.62 In countries such as Argentina and Korea, industry/sectoral agreements have been instrumental in extending the terms and conditions agreed through collective bargaining to those in non-regular work within a particular sector.

The issue of employment security is an overarching concern in the context of the current economic crisis. The ILO Global Jobs Pact sets out a framework which involves the following principles:

�“9.(8.)� engaging� in� social� dialogue,� such� as� tripartism� and� collective�bargaining� between� employers� and� workers� as� constructive� processes�to�maximise� the� impact� of� the� crisis� responses� to� the�needs� of� the� real�economy;…”

Practical responses aimed at accelerating employment creation, jobs recovery and sustaining enterprises include:

“11.� (4.)� limiting� or� avoiding� job� losses� and� supporting� enterprises� in�retaining� their� workforce� through� well-designed� schemes� implemented�through�social�dialogue�and�collective�bargaining….”

To do so, the Global Jobs Pact calls for:

“15.�…strengthened� respect� for,� and�use� of,�mechanisms� of� social� dia-logue,�including�collective�bargaining…”�63

The question of how to save jobs is on most collective bargaining agendas as enterprises face the immediate challenge of cutting costs. Two broad approaches can be observed. The first are reactive strategies aimed at survival. The social partners attempt to avoid redundancies by agreeing to wage freezes or pay cuts and the uncompensated extension of working time. Where jobs cannot be saved, they negotiate severance packages which may include “leave and return” clauses that guarantee re-employment should the business climate improve.

The second approach involves the use of collective bargaining as a tool to craft a package of short and longer-term measures aimed at main-taining income and employment through, for example, work sharing arrangements, preparing for recovery by using downtime for training, and facilitating the longer-term sustainability of the enterprise through the introduction of process innovations. This approach often draws on public measures such as short-time work unemployment benefits and

62 Information provided by Japanese Institute for Labour Policy and Training. 63 Adopted by the International Labour Conference at its 98th Session, Geneva, June 2009.


45

Box 3. Daimler: Managing change

Background

Daimler AG is the world’s twelfth largest motor vehicle producer as well as the world’s largest truck manufacturer. At the end of the second quarter in 2009, Daimler AG employed 257, 400 people worldwide, 162,800 of which were em-ployed in Germany.

The manufacturing sites of Daimler AG are covered by the sectoral multi-employer agreement for the metal and engineering sector. Most of the company specific agree-ments are negotiated with the works councils and have the legal status of a works agreement. In 2004, Daimler AG and the works council negotiated an agreement which included a critical ‘no redundancy clause’ effective until end of 2011. In the context of falling sales, Daimler AG managed workforce reduction through voluntary retirement and the expiry of fixed-term contracts. The downturn in the global econ-omy exacerbated falling demand and made it necessary to identify additional cost savings.

The collective agreement: 2004–2009

In April 2009, in the midst of a global economic crisis, management at Daimler AG announced that previous cost-cutting measures had been insufficient and that ad-ditional reductions in labour costs were needed. In extraordinary works meetings at 9 of the 15 production locations, the company demanded additional conces-sions from the workforce and began to prepare them for potential redundancies Those hired before the conclusion of the 2004 agreement would not be affected as they were protected by the ‘no redundancy clause’. However, 16,000 work-ers employed subsequently risked redundancy. Through a process of negotiation, management and the works council agreed to a range of cost-cutting measures in exchange for, among other issues, the extension of the ‘no redundancy clause’ (until June 2010) to workers that had joined Daimler after 2004. Other measures agreed include a reduction in working hours and short-time work provisions, and the postponement of pay increases and bonuses. The multi-employer agreement for the sector contained a clause which provided enterprises and works council with the flexibility to agree to postpone wage increases for a fixed time period, depending on economic circumstances. Management also agreed to forego a por-tion of monthly salary and no salary increase in 2009.

What issues arose?

Conflict arose during the negotiations when management proposed to reduce the working week from 35 to 30 hours. Short-time work is more costly to the em-ployer, but implies lesser income reductions for employees and thus the works council preferred short-time work. The social partners met the requirements for


46

training subsidies.64 One such example is the recent collective agreement reached at Daimler AG.

Collective bargaining can also play an important role as part of a broader crisis response, keeping wages stable, maintaining aggregate demand and avoiding potentially deflationary wage developments which may delay recovery. Of course, a number of outstanding ques-tions remain, such as the impact that the economic crisis will have on the industrial relations architecture in different countries. Public pol-icy plays an important role in protecting industrial relations systems from erosion and keeping wages stable. It is worth noting that under the influence of the general economic depression in the 1930s, many governments instituted measures to extend collective agreements and protect collective bargaining from being undermined by intense cost-based competition.65 The role of public policy also appears to be crucial in expanding the bargaining agenda so that the social partners can craft innovative agreements that save costs, save jobs and maintain incomes (e.g. short time-work, unemployment benefits and subsidies for train-ing). There is some question about the long-term sustainability of enter-prises in the absence of accompanying product and process innovations. Furthermore, in developing countries, these measures are often not possible.

One question which employers’ organizations, unions and govern-ments face is how these innovations can be spread beyond mere examples

64 Lehndorff and Haipeter, 2009.65 Hamburger, 1989.

short-time work and could therefore benefit from the existing provisions of German unemployment insurance, without which it would have been difficult to implement changes without a loss in income for workers.

What was the impact?

The company reported that the 2009 agreement is set to save Daimler AG €2 bil-lion in labour costs. Together with the 2004 agreement, it also saved a substantial number of jobs. The strong relationship that exists between the company and works council is identified as one of the key reasons that Daimler AG and the works council were able to reach an agreement that could help the company navi-gate through particularly difficult economic circumstances.

Sources : Zagelmeyer, 2009 and http://www.daimler.com/dccom/0-5-7171-1-1203507-1-0-0-0-0-0-9296-7164-0-0-0-0-0-0-0.html and author's interviews


47

or islands of good practice. In some cases, such as the example of pro-ductivity linked-pay bargaining in Sri Lanka, employers’ organizations are the key conduit for the spread of these practices, through training and information sharing. In other cases, unions play an important role in coordinating the bargaining agenda and advancing innovations, for instance in Japan through the Shunto. Governments can also play a facilitative role, for example by publishing innovative agreements so that these are in the public domain, or facilitating the sharing of information and good practices.

Issues for discussion

Sixty years after the signing of the first international labour Convention on collective bargaining and in the context of new challenges, collec-tive bargaining remains an important mechanism through which to improve incomes and working conditions and advance social justice. The social partners are using collective bargaining to find innovative ways to address contemporary labour market challenges, such as rising employment insecurity. The High-level Tripartite Meeting on collective bargaining offers an opportunity to reflect on these trends and develop-ments and share experiences. A number of issues may be considered for discussion during the meeting.

Managing change ■ What role can collective bargaining play in managing change as an

effective crisis response?

■ What assisted the social partners in crafting collective agreements that save jobs and ensure enterprise sustainability in the longer term?

■ What threats and opportunities does the economic crisis present for the future development and promotion of collective bargaining?

Innovative practices ■ How can collective bargaining contribute to innovation, productiv-

ity, competitiveness and enterprise sustainability?

■ How can collective bargaining contribute to better working condi-tions for non-regular workers?

■ What are some of the determinants of innovative practices in a par-ticular national and economic context, and how are these spread?


48

An enabling environment ■ How can the effective recognition of the right to collective

bargaining be facilitated and encouraged in national law and prac-tice?

■ What are the considerations for countries at different stages of eco-nomic development?


49

Bibliography

Amerasinghe, F. 2009. “The current status and evolution of industrial relations in Sri Lanka”, ILO Asia-Pacific Working Paper Series�(New Delhi, ILO Subregional Office for South Asia).

Budlender, D. 2009. “Industrial relations and collective bargaining: Trends and developments in South Africa”, DIALOGUE Working Paper No. 2, (Geneva, ILO).

Cardoso, A.; Gindin, J. 2009. “Industrial relations and collective bargaining: Argentina, Brazil and Mexico compared”, DIALOGUE Working Paper No. 5, (Geneva, ILO).

European Commission. 2008. Industrial�Relations� in�Europe (Brussels, European Commission).

European Industrial Relations Observatory (EIRO), 2009. “Industrial relations developments in Europe, 2008”, Report to the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, (Dublin).

—. 2008a. “Industrial relations developments in Europe, 2007”, Report to the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, (Dublin).

—. 2008b. “Multinational companies and collective bargaining”, Report to the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, (Dublin).

—. 2000. “Temporary agency work and collective bargaining”, Report to the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (Dublin).

Fajana, S. 2009. “Industrial relations and collective bargaining in Nigeria”, unpublished paper.

Fakhfakh, F.; Pèrotin, V.; Robinson, A. Forthcoming. “Workplace change and productivity: Does employee voice make a difference?”, in S. Hayter: Collective�bargaining�in�the�global�economy (Geneva, ILO).

Ferguson, J.P.; Kochan. T. 2008. “Sequential failures in workers’ right to organize”, MIT Sloan School of Management Institute for Work and Employment Research, available at: http://www.americanrightsatwork.org/dmdocuments/sequential_failures_in_workers_right_to_organize_3_25_2008.pdf

50


Gockel, A. 2009. “Industrial relations and collective bargaining in Ghana”, unpublished paper.

Hamburger, L. 1989. “The extension of collective agreement to cover entire trades and industries”, in International�Labour�Review, Vol. 40, No. 2, Aug.

Heyes, J.; Rainbird, H. Forthcoming. “Bargaining for training”, in S. Hayter: Collective�bargaining�in�the�global�economy (Geneva, ILO).

International Labour Organization (ILO). 2009a. “Supporting recovery policies through international labour standards and respect for workers’ rights: Issues and challenges for the Arab region”, Thematic Paper, Arab Employment Forum, Beirut, Lebanon, 19–21 Oct. 2009 (Beirut, ILO).

—. 2009b. Global�Wage�Report:�2008/09 (Geneva, ILO).

—. 2008. ILO� Declaration� on� Social� Justice� for� a� Fair� Globalization, adopted by the International Labour Conference at its Ninety-seventh Session, Geneva, 10 June 2008.

McKersie, R. et al. 2006. “Negotiating in partnership: A case study of the 2005 national negotiations at Kaiser Permanente” (MIT Sloan School of Management).

Lee, C.H. 2009. “Industrial relations and collective bargaining in China”, DIALOGUE Working Paper No. 7 (Geneva, ILO).

Lee, S.; McCann, D. Forthcoming. “Negotiating working time in fragmented labour markets”, in S. Hayter: Collective� bargaining� in�a�global�economy (Geneva, ILO).

Lehndorff, S.; Haipeter, T. 2009. “Collective bargaining and employment”, DIALOGUE Working Paper No. 3, (Geneva, ILO).

Madihi, M. 2009. “Industrial relations and collective bargaining in Tanzania”, unpublished paper.

Mazzuchi, G. 2009. “Labour relations in Uruguay, 2005-2008”, DIALOGUE Working Paper No. 6 (Geneva, ILO).

Nanfosso, R. 2009. “Comparative study on industrial relations and collective bargaining: Report on Cameroon”, unpublished paper.

Papadakis, K. (ed.). 2008. “Cross-border social dialogue and agreements: An emerging global industrial relations framework?” (Geneva, IILS/ILO).


51

Shyam Sundar, K.R. 2009a. “Current state of industrial relations in Maharashtra”, ILO Asia-Pacific Working Paper Series�(New Delhi, ILO Subregional Office for South Asia).

—. 2009b. “Current state of industrial relations in Tamil Nadu”, ILO Asia-Pacific Working Paper Series� (New Delhi, ILO Subregional Office for South Asia).

Sweeney, S. 2007. “General developments in industrial relations: The United States”, in Review� of� recent� industrial� relations� developments�in�Japan,�USA,�Brazil,�China,�and�India, (Ithaca, Cornell School of Industrial and Labor Relations), available at: http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/news/upload/General-Developments-in-Industrial-Relations.pdf

Vega, M.L. 2005. La�reforma�laboral�en�América�Latina:�15�años�después, (Lima, ILO Regional Office for Latin America and the Caribbean).

Yoon, Y. 2009. “Comparative study on industrial relations and collective bargaining in East Asian countries”, DIALOGUE Working Paper No. 8 (Geneva, ILO).

United States Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2009. “Union members in 2008”, 28 Jan. (United States Department of Labour), available at http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/union2.pdf

Zagelmeyer, S. 2009. “Enterprise-level collective bargaining in times of crisis: The case of Germany”, DIALOGUE Working Paper No. 9 (Geneva, ILO).

52


TRAdE UNION dENsITy

Country Year Proportionofwage Proportionoftotal Reported andsalariedearners employment proportion

AFRICA

Cameroon 2005 3.5

Egypt 2007 *26.1 16.1

Ethiopia 2007 12.9 1.0

Ghana 2006 70.0

Kenya 2007 35.5 4.1 31.2

Malawi 2006 *20.6 2.7 2.5

Mauritius 2007 28.2 14.8

Niger 2008 1.1

SierraLeone 2008 46.8 3.6

SouthAfrica 2008 39.8 24.9 25.0

Tanzania 2009 *18.7 2.2 2.0

Uganda 2005 1.1

AMERICAS

Antigua&Barbuda 1998 55.6

Argentina 2006 37.6

Bermuda 1995 *24.6

Bolivia 2006 26.6

Brazil 2007 20.9 17.8 18.0

Canada 2007 31.4 26.6 31.5

Chile 2007 11.5 13.6 13.6

Colombia 1997 *28.7

Cuba 2008 81.4 70.6 97.0

ElSalvador 2008 11.9 6.7 10.0

Annex 1.


53

TRAdE UNION dENsITy


Guatemala 2006 *12.9 2.5 2.8

Mexico 2008 17.0 11.2 15.6

Nicaragua 2006 *4.1 2.1

UnitedStates 2007 11.4 10.7 12.0

Uruguay 2006 19.0 13.3

ASIA

Australia 2008 19.1 17.1 18.9

Hong-Kong,China 1999 *21.5

India 2005 2.4

Japan 2007 *18.0 15.5 18.1

Korea 2006 *10.0 6.7 10.0

Malaysia 2007 *10.3 7.6

NewZealand 2008 *20.8 17.2 17.3

Pakistan 2001 *15.7

Philippines 2007 *3.2 1.7

Singapore 2007 31.7 33.3

Sri-Lanka 2003 *6.0

Taiwan,China 2006 *35.9

Thailand 2007 2.1 1.4

EuROPE

Armenia 2006 56.2 27.4

Austria 2008 *35.1 26.6

Belarus 2007 79.7 90.5 90.5

Belgium 2004 93.2 79.2 49.0

54


TRAdE UNION dENsITy


Croatia 2008 40.0

Cyprus 2006 68.4 54.5 58.1

CzechRepublic 2006 *20.8 17.3 21.0

Denmark 2008 99.2 71.5 72.6

Estonia 2007 7.6 6.9 7.6

Finland 2006 68.0 63.5 69.5

France 2005 7.9 8.0

Georgia 2007 40.7 14.9

Germany 2007 *19.9 17.5 19.9

Greece 2007 *30.6 19.6 28.0

Hungary 2004 19.9 14.0 16.9

Iceland 2002 *88.7 74.0 85.0

Ireland 2007 31.5 20.8 31.5

Italy 2007 97.1 24.0 33.3

Latvia 2007 13.0 11.6 14.8

Lithuania 2007 10.0 10.0

Luxembourg 2008 *43.6 39.0

Malta 1999 *60.8

Moldova 2007 40.0 26.8

Netherlands 2007 *20.5 17.7 19.8

Norway 2006 52.9 65.5 53.0

Portugal 2003 *19.5 14.7 18.7

Romania 2007 32.3 21.4 22.8

Serbia 2007 29.1 19.0

Slovak 2007 12.9 13.6

Spain 2006 *14.5 11.9 14.6


55

TRAdE UNION dENsITy


Sweden 2007 *73.6 65.8 85.1

Switzerland 2007 *23.7 18.6 22.8

Turkey 2007 *25.1 14.6 58.4

UnitedKingdom 2007 28.0

MIDDlE EAST

Israel 2002 35.0

Kuwait 2002 2.3

Syria 2003 16.9

*Rate calculated using the number of trade union members as a proportion of wage and salary earners.

Technical note: Trade union density definitions

The trade union density rate expresses union membership as a propor-tion of the eligible workforce and is used as an indicator of the degree of unionization within a country and the quality of social dialogue. The union density rate only measures the extent of unionization in a country and tells us nothing about the bargaining power of unions. Countries with low density rates may have very high coverage by collec-tive agreements.

For the purpose of this indicator, a trade union is defined as an “inde-pendent association of workers, constituted for the purposes of furthering and defending the workers’ interests” - (Art. 10, Freedom of Association and the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87)).

56


The rates in Annex 1 are as follows:

Proportion of wage and salaried earners

This rate expresses the number of trade union members (data provided by a Statistical Office or Labour Administration) as a proportion of wage and salaried workers (data from the ILO’s LABORSTA database). Ideally, only trade union members in waged employment are included in the numerator. For these reasons, it is thus important to know the composition of the union (i.e. whether its membership includes unem-ployed, retired, or self-employed members) and to exclude these from the numerator. However, it is sometimes difficult to estimate which trade union members are wage earners. In these cases, the numerator includes all trade union members.

Proportion of total employment

Since developing economies may have missing data and/or large infor-mal sectors, taking wage and salaried earners as the denominator may not provide a realistic picture of the union density rate. For this reason, we also calculate the number of trade union members as a proportion of all those in employment (whether in the formal or informal econ-omy). This is calculated using data provided by a Statistical Office or Labour Administration; total employment data comes from the ILO’s LABORSTA database.

Reported proportion

This reflects the rate reported by the National Statistics Office or Labour Administration in the surveyed country. It was sometimes not possible to establish the basis on which this rate was calculated, since the original figures for membership were not included.


57

COLLECTIvE BARGAINING COvERAGE


AFRICA

Ethiopia 2007 22.7 8.3

Ghana 2006 70.0

Kenya 2007 *3.7 0.4 *3.2

Malawi 2006 20.8 2.7 2.5

Mauritius 2008 16.5 9.9

Niger 2008 #0.2

SierraLeone 2008 46.8 3.5

SouthAfrica 2008 27.3 17.1 17.0

Sudan 2008 *0.2

AMERICAS

Argentina 2006 60.0

Brazil 2006 60.0

Canada 2007 29.3 31.5

Chile 2007 9.6 6.5 11.5

CostaRica 2008 16.2 11.8

Cuba 2008 81.4 67.7 98.3

ElSalvador 2008 4.1 2.2

Honduras 2007 5.6 2.6 5.2

Mexico 2007 10.5 6.9

Nicaragua 2007 3.9 2.0

UnitedStates 2007 12.9 11.8 13.3

Uruguay 2007 *89.0

Annex 2.

58




ASIA

Australia 2008 38.2 39.8

Bangladesh 2006 5.0 1.1

FrenchPolynesia 2007 52.0 46.4 60.3

Indonesia 2005 14.0 4.0

Malaysia 2007 *2.4 1.8

NewZealand 2007 17.8 14.6 21.7

Philippines 2008 2.2 1.1 1.7

Singapore 2007 17.3 14.6

Thailand 2007 1.4

EuROPE

Armenia 2007 21.0 10.3

Austria 2006 95.0

Belarus 2007 95.6 95.6

Belgium 2007 *96.0

Bulgaria 2006 38.2 37.8

Croatia 2008 50.0

Cyprus 2006 72.3 66.1 67.0

Denmark 2006 95.6 92.0

Egypt 2008 3.4 2.1

Estonia 2007 11.3 11.1 *11.3

Finland 2006 98.0

France 2004 *97.7

Georgia 2008 25.9 9.5 17.0

Germany 2006 35.8 35.1 48.0


59



Hungary 2007 35.4 40.6

Iceland 2008 100.0 99.0

Italy 2004 *98.2 *96.0

Latvia 2006 34.7 39.9

Lithuania 2007 10.0

Luxembourg 2007 49.8 46.7 *53.9

Norway 2004 75.1 74.0

Poland 2008 *14.4 11.0

Portugal 2007 38.7 29.2

Romania 2006 82.5 100.0

SlovakRepublic 2007 24.5 24.5

Spain 2006 68.6 70.0

Switzerland 2008 46.9 36.9 32.0

Turkey 2007 26.0

Ukraine 2007 84.1 45.9

UnitedKingdom 2007 34.6

MIDDlE EAST

Israel 2002 50.0

Syria 2007 24.7

* Denotes private sector coverage only. # Denotes public sector coverage only.

60


Technical note: Collective bargaining coverage definitions

Collective bargaining coverage is measured as the number of workers in employment whose pay, and/or conditions of employment, is deter-mined by one or more collective agreement(s). The collective bargaining coverage rate expresses collective bargaining coverage as a proportion of those who earn wages and salaries in employment and thus takes covered employees as the numerator.

While this social dialogue indicator provides some sense of the degree to which wages and working conditions are governed by collective agree-ments, it is an imperfect indicator. Collective bargaining coverage rates do not necessarily reflect the direct outcome of negotiations. They are a function of the particularity of the industrial relations system and type of labour regulation to which a country subscribes. This includes the bargaining structure and the interaction between the collective bargain-ing process and administrative regulations and labour law. For example, centralized collective bargaining structures tend to be associated with high coverage rates. In countries with extension mechanisms, collective agreements are extended to include enterprises and workers who may not have participated in actual negotiations.

For the purpose of this indicator, collective bargaining encompasses “negotiations which take place between an employer, a group of employ-ers or one or more employers’ organizations, […] and one or more work-ers’ organizations, […] for determining working conditions and terms of employment.” (Article 2, ILO Promotion of Collective Bargaining Convention, 1981 (No. 154)). This should include the determination of remuneration.

The rates in Annex 2 are as follows:

Proportion of wage and salaried earners

This rate expresses the number of workers covered by collective agree-ments (data provided by a Statistical Office or Labour Administration) as a proportion of wage and salaried workers. (data from the ILO’s LABORSTA database).

Proportion of total employment

Since developing economies may have missing data and/or large infor-mal sectors, taking wage and salaried earners as the denominator may


61

not provide a realistic picture of the role that collective bargaining plays in labour market governance. For this reason, we also calculate the number of workers covered by collective agreements as a proportion of all those in employment (whether in the formal or informal econ-omy). This is calculated using data provided by a Statistical Office or Labour Administration; total employment data is taken from the ILO’s LABORSTA database.

Reported proportion

This reflects the rate reported by the National Statistics Office or Labour Administration in the surveyed country. It was sometimes not possible to establish the basis on which this rate was calculated, since the original figures were not included.


62



63

Collective Bargaining: Negotiating for Social JusticeHigh-level Tripartite Meeting on Collective Bargaining


Thursday, 19 November 2009 | Room II, R3

15h00 – 17h00 Registration

17h00 – 18h00 Welcome and opening Reception

Friday, 20 November 2009 | Room II, R3

09h00 – 09h15 Introduction by Chairperson Prof. Thomas Kochan, Professor, MIT Sloan School of Management, Cambridge, Massachusetts

09h15 – 11h00 Managing change The session will examine the role that collective bargaining plays in managing change as an effective crisis response.

Overview of developments in Europe Prof. Maarten Keune, Professor, Amsterdam Institute for Advanced Labour Studies (AIAS)

Case study – Daimler AG Dr Ulrich Leitner, Head of the Labor and Social Law Department, Daimler AG, Stuttgart

Mr Michael Brecht, Chairman of the Works Council, Mercedes-Benz Plant, Gaggenau

11h00 – 11h30 Break

PROGRAMME

64

Annexes - Programme

11h30 – 13h00 Innovative practices The session will highlight innovative ways in which the social partners in different regions are addressing contemporary challenges.

Case study – Kaiser Permanente Ms Barbara Grimm, Senior Vice President, Kaiser Permanente

Mr John August, Executive Director, Coalition of Kaiser Permanente Unions

Collective bargaining and non-regular workers in India Mr K. R. Shyam Sundar, Reader, Department of Economics, Mumbai

13h00 – 14h30 Lunch

14h30 – 16h00 An enabling environment This session will examine measures taken to promote the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining.

Australia Mr Greg Vines, Minister Counsellor (Labour), Australian Permanent Mission to the UN Geneva

South Africa . Ms .Valencia .Kola, Acting General Secretary, Public Sector Coordinating Bargaining Council

United States Ms .Wilma .Liebman, Chairman, National Labor Relations Board

Uruguay . Ms .Graciela .Mazzuchi, Researcher, Instituto de Relaciones Laborales, Universidad Católica del Uruguay

16h00 – 16h30 Closing session Summary by the Chairperson


65

Collective Bargaining: Negotiating for Social JusticeHigh-level Tripartite Meeting on Collective Bargaining


LIsT Of PARTICIPANTs

Name Country Organization

Governments

Mr. Greg Vines Australia Australian Permanent Mission to the UN Geneva

Ms. Aylza Gudin Brazil Section de Relations de Travail, Ministère du Travail

Mr. Charles Louis Molgo France Office of Collective Labour Relations, General Direction for Labour, Minister of Employment, Social Relations, Family and Solidarity Accompanied by Mr. Martin French Permanent Mission to the UN, Geneva

Ms. Franziska Fitting Germany Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs

Mr. Shri P.C. Chaturvedi India Ministry of Labour and Employment

Mr. Taro Muraki Japan Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare

Mr. Muhib Nimrat & Jordan Permanent Mission of Jordan Mr. Mutaz Hyassat to the UN Geneva

Ms. Omolara Olanrewaju Nigeria Trade Union Services and Industrial Relations Department, Ministry of Labour and Productivity

Mr. Valentine Mocanu Romania Ministry of Labour, Family and Social Protection

Mr. Thembinkosi Mkalipi South Africa South African Department of Labour

Sra. Laura Dupuy Uruguay Ambassador, Permanent Mission of Uruguay to the UN Geneva Accompanied by Counsellor, Permanent Mission Mr. Gabriel Winter of Uruguay to the UN Geneva

66

Annexes - List of participants

Chairman Wilma B. Liebman USA National Labor Relations Board Accompanied by Mr. Robert Hagen

Employers’ organizations

Mr. Scott Barklamb International Organisation of Employers

Mr. Daniel Funes de Rioja Employer Vice-Chairperson of the ILO

Mr. Daniel Mammone Australia Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry

Mr. Dagoberto Lima Godoy Brazil Confederação Nacional da Indústria

Mr. Peter Woolford Canada Retail Council of Canada

Mr. Emmanuel Julien France Mouvement des Entreprises de France, MEDEF

Mr. Paul Noll Germany BDA, Confederation of German Employers

Dr. U. D. Choubey India Standing Conference of Public Enterprises (SCOPE)

Mr. Hiroyuki Matsui Japan Japan Business Federation

Ms. Uche Ajaegbu Nigeria Nigeria Employers’ Consultative Association

Mr. Dragos Mihalache Romania Alliance of Romanian Employers’ Confederation

Dr. Elize Strydom South Africa Business Unity South Africa, BUSA

Mr. Stefan Jan Marculewicz USA Miles & Stockbridge

Dr. Juan Mailhos Gutiérrez Uruguay Cámara nacional de Comercio y Accompanied by Servicios del ruguay (National Chamber Mr. Gonzalo Irrazabal Buquet of Commerce and Services)

Workers’ organizations

Ms. Raquel Gonzalez International Trade Union Confederation

Sir Roy Trotman Worker Vice-Chairperson of the ILO

Mr. José Moacyr Malvino Pereira Brazil União Geral dos Trabalhadores

Ms. Marie Alice Medeuf Andrieu France Confédération Générale du Travail Force Ouvrière



67

Mr. Shri C. P. John India Kerala Nirman Thozhilali Federation (KNTF)

Mr. Shigeru Nakajima Japan Japanese Trade Union Confederation

Mr. Owei Lakemfa Nigeria Nigeria Labour Congress

Ms. Trine Lise Sundnes Norway LO-Norway

Mr. Dany Circiu Romania National Trade Union Confederation "Cartel ALFA"

Mr. Bheki Ntshalintshali South Africa Congress of South African Trade Unions

Mr. Jacques Robert Switzerland Secrétaire National Union

Mr. Houcine Abassi Tunisia Union Générale Tunisienne du Travail (Tunisia General Union of Labor)

Mr. John August USA Coalition of Kaiser Permanente Unions (CKPU)

Mr. Milton Castellano Uruguay PIT-CNT, Plenario Intersindical de Trabajadores (PIT) y Convención Nacional Trabajadores (CNT)

Speakers/presenters

Director-General Juan Somavia International Labour Organization

Ambassador Maria Nazareth Chairperson of the Governing Body Farani Azevêdo

Sir Roy Trotman Worker Vice-Chairperson of the Governing Body

Mr. Daniel Funes de Rioja Employer Vice-Chairperson of the Governing Body

Prof. Thomas Kochan USA MIT Sloan School of Management

Prof. Maarten Keune Netherlands Amsterdam Institute for Advanced Labour Studies (AIAS)

Dr. Ulrich Leitner Germany Daimler AG

Mr. Michael Brecht Germany Daimler AG

Ms. Barbara Grimm USA Kaiser Permanente, Labor Management Partnership


68


Mr. John August USA Coalition of Kaiser Permanente Unions

Mr. K. R. Shyam Sundar India Department of Economics

Mr. Greg Vines Australia Australian Permanent Mission to the UN Geneva

Ms. Valencia Kola South Africa Public Sector Coordinating Bargaining Council

Chairman Wilma B. Liebman USA National Labor Relations Board

Ms. Graciela Mazzuchi Uruguay Instituto de Relaciones Laborales, Universidad Católica del Uruguay

Observers

Mr. Jim Baker International Trade Union Confederation (Global Unions)

Mr. Jorge Cabrita European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions

Mr. Robert Steiert International Metalworkers’ Federation (IMF)

Ms. Vera Glassner European Trade Union Institute

Other persons attending the meeting

Mr. A. Ramadass Malaysia Malaysian Employers Federation

Mr. Abdoulaye Lélouma Diallo Permanent Representative de l’OUSA OATUU

Mr. Abdulla Hussain Bahrain General Federation of Bahrain Trade Unions

Mr. Adib Miro Greece World Federation of Trade Unions

Mr. Agui Palanga Togo Confédération nationale des Travailleurs du Togo

Mr. Alexandre Jean-Bony Haiti Permanent Mission to the UN Geneva, Haiti

Mr. Al-Taie Sarmad Iraq Iraq Permanent Mission to the UN Geneva

Ms. Alvine Aboh Chaudanson Benin Ministre du Travail et de la Fonction



69

Mr. Aminuddin bin Ab Rahaman Malaysia Malaysian Permanent Mission to the UN Geneva

Mr. Amir Shamir Iran Permanent Mission to the UN Geneva, Iran

Mr. Antonio Fernández Portugal Lisbon University

Mr. Arnaldo de Souza Benedetti Brazil General Workers' Union (UGT)

Mr. Aurelio Linero Panama Comisión Laboral, Asesor, CONEP

Ms. B. Quacoe Ivory Coast Permanent Mission to the UN Geneva, Ivory COSAT

Mr. Carlos Flores Venezuela Permanent Mission to the UN Geneva, Venezuela

Mr. Christophe Kint Aguiar Benin Ministre du Travail et de la Fonction

Ms. Cimzia del Rio Italy Italian Union of Labour

Mr. Djama Ali Djibouti Permanent Mission to the UN Geneva, Djibouti

Mr. E. Megateli Algeria Confédération générale des Entreprises algériennes

Mr. El Bouazzaoui Mustapha Morocco Morrocan Permanent Mission to the UN Geneva

Mr. El-Hacène Elbey Algeria Algerian Permanent Mission to the UN Geneva

Ms. Elia Estela Avila de Peña El Salvador Ministerio de Trabajo y Previsión Social

Mr. Faiyaz Murshid Kazi Bangladesh Permanent Mission to the UN Geneva, Bangladesh

Ms. Félicité Awassi Atsimadja Gabon Confédération patronale gabonaise (CPG)

Mr. Francis Munhundiripo Zimbabwe Permanent Mission to the UN Geneva, Zimbabwe

Ms. Gertrude Gazard Benin Ministre du Travail et de la Fonction

Mr. Hernàn García Aparicio Panama Ministerio de Trabajo

Ms. Hilda Anderson Mexico Acción Femenil, Comité Nacional, Confederación de Trabajadores de México (CTM)


70


Mr. Idriss Jazaïry Algeria Ambassador, Algerian Permanent Mission to the UN Geneva

Mr. Ivan Gantes Panama

Ms. Jacqueline Mugo Kenya Federation of Kenya Employers

Mr. Jean Tossavi Benin Ministre du Travail et de la Fonction

Mr. Jerald Zellhoefer France European Representative, AFL-CIO

Mr. Juan Carlos Fròmeta Cuba Permanent Mission to the UN Geneva, Cuba

Mr. Juan Carlos Soto USA

Mr. Julio Roberto Gomez Columbia Workers’ Group Vice-président

Mr. Junichiro Kurashige Japan Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, Japan

Mr. Junya Hoshida Japan Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, Japan

Ms. Kanjana Wongsuwan Thailand Ministry of Labour

Ms. Kathleen Stamato Brazil Labour Law Judge

Ms. Lucia Matibenga Zimbabwe Zimbabwe Congreso of Trade Unions (ZCTU)

Mr. Makoye Musa Ayub Tanzania Ministry of Labour Employment and Youth Development

Ms. María Lucrecia Venezuela Oficina Relaciones Internacionales Hernández Vitar y Enlace con la OIT

Ms. Marie Monrad USA Kaiser Permanente (Assistant to the Presenters: Ms. Barbara Grima and Mr. John August)

Mr. Martin Hubert France French Permanent Mission to the UN Geneva

Mr. Mino Jung Korea Permanent Mission to the UN Geneva

Mr. Mourad Boukadoum Algeria Algerian Permanent Mission to the UN Geneva

Mr. Noah Siasimuna Zambia Ministry of Labour and Social Security



71

Mr. Nobunao Tagaya Japan Japan Permanent Mission to the UN Geneva

Ms. Osiris Beatriz de la Torre World Federation of Trade Unions, Permanent Representative

Mr. Peter N. U. Ajuzie Nigeria Nigerian Permanent Mission to the UN Geneva

Mr. Peter Tomek Austria Federation of Austrian Industry

Mr. Raafat El-Meslawy Egypt Permanent Mission to the UN Geneva, Egypt

Ms. Rabiatou Sérah Diallo Guinea Confédération nationale des Travailleurs de Guinée (CNTG)

Mr. Rafael Hands Diaz Venezuela Ministerio del Trabajo

Mr. Robert Hagan USA U.S. Department of State

Mr. Roger Lecourt ILO Senior Consultant

Ms. Sandra Rivra Flores El Salvador

Mr. Sergio Paixão Brazil

Ms. Terézia Borosné-Bartha Hungary Confederation of Hungarian Employers and Industrialists

Ms. Theresa Braimah Nigeria Ministry of Labour and Productivity

Mr. Yao Amoussou Benin Ministre du Travail et de la Fonction

Mr. Yves Veyrier France Service international et Europe, CGT-FO.

Ms. Zoe Leonard-Monrad USA Kaiser Permanente

International Labour Office

Mr. George Dragnich ILO Executive Director, Social Dialogue

Mr. Tayo Fashoyin ILO Director, Industrial and Employment Relations Department (DIALOGUE)

Ms. Susan Hayter ILO Industrial and Employment Relations Department (DIALOGUE)

Ms. Johanna de Vries ILO Industrial and Employment Relations Department (DIALOGUE)

Ms. Minawa Ebisui ILO Industrial and Employment Relations Department (DIALOGUE)


Mr. Colin Fenwick ILO Industrial and Employment Relations Department (DIALOGUE)

Mr. Youcef Ghellab ILO Industrial and Employment Relations Department (DIALOGUE)

Mr. Kostas Papadakis ILO Industrial and Employment Relations Department (DIALOGUE)

Ms. Corinne Vargha ILO Industrial and Employment Relations Department (DIALOGUE)

Mr. Humberto Villasmil ILO Industrial and Employment Relations Department (DIALOGUE)

Ms. Ashley Hemsworth ILO Industrial and Employment Relations Department (DIALOGUE)

Ms. Rita Natola ILO Industrial and Employment Relations Department (DIALOGUE)

Ms. Doris Guaman ILO Industrial and Employment Relations Department (DIALOGUE)

Ms. Elsa Fournier-Valette ILO Industrial and Employment Relations Department (DIALOGUE)

Ms. Mothepa Ndumo ILO Industrial and Employment Relations Department (DIALOGUE)

Mr. Bradley Weinberg ILO Industrial and Employment Relations Department (DIALOGUE)

Ms. Mélanie Jeanroy ILO Industrial and Employment Relations Department (DIALOGUE)

Ms. Rosemary Fairley ILO Industrial and Employment Relations Department (DIALOGUE)

Anna Biondi ILO ACTRAV

Beatriz Vacotto ILO ACTRAV

Dimitriva Dimitrova ILO ACTRAV

Elizabeth Tinoco ILO Director, SECTOR

Frank Hoffer ILO ACTRAV

Jane Hodges ILO Director, GENDER

Riikka Koskenmäki ILO ILO JUR

Roy Chacko ILO Bureau for Employers’ Activities, ILO

Seiji Machida ILO SAFEWORK


72



73

NOTES

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

74

Notes

NOTES

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

Collective bargaining:Negotiating for social justice

High-level Tripartite Meeting on Collective Bargaining


collective bargaining: negotiating for social justice · 2016. 4. 28. · high-level tripartite...

Documents